2010 (11) TMI 285 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Goods imported through courier agency - Held that When the goods are imported through courier agency, it is not in dispute that the courier agency are permitted to file bill of entry on behalf of the importer-consignee and clear the consignment. When the courier agency has been permitted to file common bill of entry on behalf of several importers, obviously all such importers cannot be given original documents. Production of photocopies of bill of entry by the respondents cannot be held against them. The submission in the grounds of appeal that the name of the respondents is not appearing in the bill of entry is factually incorrect. Though the bill of entry is filed by the courier agency, the details of each importer - consignee stand mentioned in the bill of entry. Considering the special category of imports and considering that the Customs have prescribed a different procedure, the grounds on which the credit are sought to be denied cannot be sustained.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside duty demand and penalty imposition on imported goods through courier agency.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the department challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order that set aside the duty demand of Rs. 71,375 and penalty imposed on the imported goods through a courier agency. The original authority had denied credit on the goods imported through the courier agency, alleging that the bill of entry was not filed by the importers and demanded duty along with a penalty. The respondents had imported a consignment through the courier mode, and the courier agency filed a combined bill of entry for several importers. The respondents received photocopies of the bill of entry and took credit for the CVD paid on the imported goods. The original authority's denial of credit was based on the grounds that the bill of entry was not filed by the respondents and that they did not produce the original bill of entry.

During the hearing, the department reiterated its grounds of appeal and the original authority's findings and reasoning. On the other hand, the advocate for the respondents strongly supported the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and examined the records. It was noted that the material on which the credit was taken had been imported by the respondents and used for internal purposes. The department's objection that the respondents did not produce the bill of entry in their name was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal highlighted that when goods are imported through a courier agency, the agency is permitted to file the bill of entry on behalf of the importer-consignee. In such cases, all importers cannot be provided with original documents. Therefore, the production of photocopies of the bill of entry by the respondents was deemed acceptable. The Tribunal emphasized that the details of each importer were mentioned in the bill of entry filed by the courier agency. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions to support its ruling, citing cases where similar issues were addressed. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no valid reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and rejected the appeal.