2016 (2) TMI 1032 - HC - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 98/2009-Cus. dated 11th September 2009 - Duty Free Import Authorisations - import of Saffron as food flavor for export of Assorted Confectionery and Biscuits - actual use condition and disclosure - Held that - If a particular authorisation does not contain an entry for restricting Saffron then by an inferential process and when the Licensing Authority did not think it proper to insert it it will not be permissible to read it in the same. In terms of duty which is to be imposed and recovered there is no question of any inference. The provisions enabling imposition and recovery of tax for duty have to be cleared - In the present case the DFIA in question did not contain any entry restricting Saffron. That is how and in the absence of any further amendments to these authorisations that the Licensing Authority did not deem it proper to impose any liability. If that has not been imposed and the process by which it has to be read is as above then the Tribunal s finding of fact cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging orders passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on an assessee's appeal regarding import of Saffron and duty exemption claims.

Analysis:
The Revenue contended that two questions of law raised in the appeal were substantial, arguing that the assessee imported Saffron under Duty Free Import Authorisations (DFIA) by availing duty exemption benefits. However, upon scrutiny, it was revealed that the authorisations were issued against export of Assorted Confectionery and Biscuits covered by Standard Input and Output Norms (SION). The Revenue claimed that the assessee failed to prove the actual use of Saffron in the export product, rendering the duty exemption invalid. The Revenue alleged violations of Foreign Trade Rules and Public Notice conditions, invoking Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found no suppression or fraud in the case, emphasizing adherence to conditions stipulated in the notification and norms. It concluded that the absence of any restriction entry for Saffron in the authorisation meant no liability could be imposed. The Tribunal's factual findings were deemed non-perverse, and the appeals were dismissed as the arguments and findings were common.

The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the notification, norms, and authorisations issued. It highlighted the importance of explicit references in authorisations to impose restrictions and liabilities. The absence of such entries for Saffron meant no duty imposition was warranted. The Tribunal's finding was upheld as not being vitiated by any legal errors, as it correctly interpreted the conditions and requirements for duty exemption under DFIA. The judgment emphasized the need for adherence to specified norms and conditions for availing duty exemptions and import benefits under the scheme. The dismissal of the appeals indicated that the Tribunal's decision was deemed legally sound and factually justified, leading to the maintenance of the original adjudication order.