2011 (1) TMI 1432 - AT - Customs

Investigation - 100% EOU - Bonded warehouse - Scrutiny - Demand - Apart from accepting that the import was made by M/s. ESSAR Oil Ltd. they have not been able to effectively rebut the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the removal of the goods from the warehouse was authorised by the Supdt. of Customs without payment of any Customs duty - Failure on the part of the respondents to invite the attention of the officers to the fact of non-payment of Additional Duty by the importer i.e. M/s. ESSAR Oil Ltd. cannot be equated with any wilful and mala fide suppression of fact on the part of the appellants - Appeals are rejected accordingly

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notifications exempting duty on specified goods for 100% EOUs.
- Imposition of Additional Duty of Customs on High Speed Diesel Oil.
- Allegations of duty evasion by importing HSD without paying Additional Duty.
- Confirmation of duty demand and penalties by the adjudicating authority.
- Appeals challenging the duty demand and penalties.
- Liability of the importer for payment of duty.
- Application of the extended period of limitation for duty demand.
- Dispute regarding suppression of material facts by the appellant.
- Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions on similar issues.

Interpretation of Notifications exempting duty on specified goods for 100% EOUs:
The judgment concerns the interpretation of notifications exempting duty on specified goods for 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs). The notifications exempt Basic Customs Duty but not the Additional Duty of Customs imposed on High Speed Diesel Oil (HSD) from 1999 onwards.

Imposition of Additional Duty of Customs on High Speed Diesel Oil:
An Additional Duty of Customs on imported HSD was imposed from 1999 onwards, which the 100% EOUs were liable to pay. The duty rate increased to Rs. 1.50 per liter from 2003.

Allegations of duty evasion by importing HSD without paying Additional Duty:
The case involved allegations of duty evasion by M/s. Rana Polycot Ltd., who imported HSD without paying the Additional Duty of Customs, resulting in a significant amount of duty evasion.

Confirmation of duty demand and penalties by the adjudicating authority:
The Joint Commissioner confirmed the duty demand against the respondents, imposing penalties, which were upheld by the original adjudicating authority invoking the extended period.

Appeals challenging the duty demand and penalties:
The respondents appealed the duty demand and penalties before the Commissioner (Appeals), arguing that the duty liability rested with the importer, M/s. ESSAR Oil Ltd., and not them.

Liability of the importer for payment of duty:
The appellate authority held that the duty liability, if any, was on the importer, M/s. ESSAR Oil Ltd., before the goods were removed from the warehouse, absolving the respondents of duty payment obligations.

Application of the extended period of limitation for duty demand:
The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the limitation aspect, stating that there was no suppression of facts by the respondents, leading to the appeals being allowed on merits and limitation.

Dispute regarding suppression of material facts by the appellant:
The Revenue contended that non-declaration of non-payment of Additional Duty by the importer amounted to suppressing material facts, justifying the extended period. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that there was no wilful suppression by the appellants.

Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions on similar issues:
The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where duty liability was not imposed on the appellants due to goods being assessed in bond and no evidence of misuse, supporting the decision to uphold the impugned order on merits and limitation, rejecting the appeals filed by the Revenue.

← Previous Next →