2002 (5) TMI 745 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 125/86-Cus for imported machinery under Project Import Regulations.
2. Validity of Less Charge Demand Notice for recovery of duty short levied.
3. Claim of time bar by importers.
4. Finalization of provisional assessment under Project Import Regulations.
5. Inordinate delay in finalizing assessment rendering proceedings null and void.

Analysis:

1. The Appellants imported machinery under Project Import Regulations and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 125/86-Cus. However, during assessment, it was found that the benefit was not available, leading to a Less Charge Demand Notice for recovery of duty short levied. Importers cited relevant case law in support of their claim for the benefit of the notification.

2. The Assistant Commissioner, relying on judgments of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, denied the benefit of the notification to goods falling under Heading 9801. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the order, deeming the demand premature and without legal authority under Section 28(3)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Importers raised a claim of time bar, arguing that the assessment under Project Import Regulations was provisional, making the show cause notice unauthorized. The Commissioner's direction for finalizing the assessment was challenged, citing judgments from the Bombay High Court and previous Tribunal cases.

4. The Tribunal found that the assessment of imported goods under Project Import Regulations was indeed provisional, as indicated in the bond filed by the Appellants. The Less Charge Demand, akin to a Show Cause Notice, was deemed inappropriate for provisional assessments, aligning with established legal principles.

5. Addressing the issue of inordinate delay in finalizing assessments, the Tribunal referred to judgments highlighting the importance of reasonable time limits. Notably, the Tribunal emphasized that delays could render proceedings null and void, underscoring the necessity for timely adjudication.

6. Considering the legal precedents and arguments presented, the Tribunal acknowledged the binding nature of High Court judgments but emphasized the need for judicial propriety in addressing fundamental issues. Consequently, the appeal was referred to a Larger Bench for a comprehensive determination, reflecting the significance of the legal complexities involved in the case.