2005 (6) TMI 413 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of Customs duty based on incorrect dimensions of imported film.
2. Discrepancy in the quantity of imported film leading to a demand for differential duty payment.
3. Appeal against the demand for payment of differential duty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of "unexposed cinematographic positive print films" by the respondents, which were cut to size for use in the cine-industry in India. The imported jumbo rolls were re-warehoused in a private bonded warehouse at Pondicherry after being imported from Belgium. The Customs authorities noticed a discrepancy in the calculation of Customs duty as the importer had based it on incorrect dimensions of the film, resulting in a difference between the actual quantity imported and the quantity for which duty was paid.

2. The department demanded a payment of Rs. 5,34,023/- as a differential duty from the party. The original authority confirmed this demand under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, stating that the duty was to be paid only on the usable portion of the films, following established practice. Additionally, the scrap generated from cutting the jumbo rolls was cleared by paying Excise duty, ensuring no non-payment of duty.

3. The Appellate Tribunal, after examining the records and hearing both sides, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal agreed with the findings that Customs duty was traditionally demanded only on the usable portion of the imported films and that the scrap from cutting the jumbo rolls was cleared by paying Excise duty. As these key findings were not challenged in the appeal, it was concluded that there was no merit in the appeal, leading to its dismissal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the calculation and payment of Customs duty on the imported films, emphasizing the established practice and the clearance of scrap generated from cutting the jumbo rolls. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the demand for payment of differential duty was not upheld.