9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Levy of Special Additional Duty of Customs on goods purchased on high sea sale basis. Analysis: The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal that imposed Special Additional Duty of Customs due to high sea sale basis of goods. The appellants raised multiple grounds of appeal, including errors by the Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding the levy of SAD, failure to consider applicability by the Assistant Commissioner, lack of notice to the appellants, and unilateral decision-making by the Commissioner (Appeals). They argued that SAD was not applicable to the case, as the goods were for trading, not manufacturing, and the importer held only a dealer license under Sales Tax Law, not a Central Excise Registration for manufacture. They also contended that the procurement of goods on high sea sales did not affect SAD levy. Moreover, they highlighted the relevance of CEN. 34/98-Cus., dated 13-6-98, particularly condition Sl. No. 12, which they believed exempted them from SAD. The Departmental Representative argued that the goods were imported on high sea sale basis before an exemption was granted, and previous notifications required specific conditions for duty exemption, such as producing a Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) and debiting duties. The DR emphasized that the appellants did not fulfill these conditions, as per Notification No. 34/98-Cus., dated 13-6-98, which specified that goods imported for sale as such, excluding high sea sales, required a declaration in the bill of entry. Therefore, the DR asserted that the appellants were not entitled to SAD exemption, and their appeal should be rejected. The Tribunal examined the legal provisions and notifications cited by both parties. It noted that the relevant notifications did not allow SAD exemption for goods bought on high sea sale or for importers failing to meet the specified conditions, such as producing DEPB and debiting duties. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of SAD on the appellants, rejecting their appeal and affirming the impugned order. The decision was based on the interpretation of the law and the specific conditions outlined in the notifications, leading to the denial of SAD exemption for the appellants in this case.
|
