9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 347 - AT - CustomsExemption - Concessional rate of duty - Material licensed for importation - The import licence authorized only import of high carbon wire or rods whereas the goods imported by the appellant were brass-plated high carbon wires - The appellant failed to satisfy the condition of Notification No. 513/86-Cus - The raw material licensed for importation by the appellant would be covered by the double-dashed entry 7217.31 (not plated or coated, whether or not polished) whereas the material imported by the appellant would be covered by the double dashed entry 7217.33 (plated or coated with other base metals)- the Revenue has made an endavour to establish that the raw material imported by the appellant was different from the material licensed for importation - Held that the appellant is not entitled to claim the benefit of concessional rate of duty.
Issues:
1. Validity of import licence for brass-plated high carbon steel wires. 2. Exemption under Customs Notification No. 210/82-Cus. 3. Applicability of Customs Notification No. 513/86-Cus. 4. Classification of imported goods. 5. Compliance with conditions of Notifications. Issue 1 - Validity of Import Licence: The appellant filed two bills of entry for brass-plated high carbon steel wires under a licence issued for "high carbon steel wires or rod." Customs authorities initially denied clearance, stating the licence was not valid for the imported goods. Subsequently, clearance was allowed under an interim order by the Bombay High Court. The show-cause notice proposed duty recovery, leading to the dispute. The Assistant Commissioner held the goods did not meet Notification conditions, resulting in a duty demand of Rs. 7,17,877. Issue 2 - Exemption under Notification No. 210/82-Cus: Notification No. 210/82-Cus granted duty exemption for raw materials required for goods supplied to specific agencies. The appellant claimed exemption, arguing the imported wires were used in goods for M/s. ONGC. However, M/s. ONGC was omitted from the notification before the import, rendering the exemption inapplicable. Issue 3 - Applicability of Notification No. 513/86-Cus: Notification No. 513/86-Cus partially exempted raw materials for goods supplied to specific entities. The appellant sought this benefit, but the import licence only allowed for "high carbon wire or rods," not brass-plated wires. The discrepancy in descriptions led to the rejection of the appellant's claim under this notification. Issue 4 - Classification of Imported Goods: The imported goods were brass-plated high carbon steel wires, differing from the description in the import licence. The classification under the Customs Tariff Schedule indicated a mismatch between the licensed material and the imported goods, further weakening the appellant's position. Issue 5 - Compliance with Conditions of Notifications: The appellant failed to satisfy the conditions of both Notifications No. 210/82-Cus and No. 513/86-Cus due to discrepancies in descriptions and classifications. The Customs authorities rightly demanded duty, which was upheld in the appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's claim. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand, emphasizing the importance of complying with notification conditions and accurately describing imported goods in the licence. The judgment highlights the significance of adherence to legal requirements in availing duty exemptions and the implications of discrepancies in descriptions and classifications on such claims.
|
