2015 (10) TMI 545 - AT - Customs

Amendment of Invoice Demand of differential duty Appellant filed letter to Customs seeking for amendment of invoice Adjudicating authority in denovo order, not only rejected request for amendment but confirmed differential duty and confiscated goods and imposed redemption fine along with penalty Commissioner (A) dismissed appeal for non-compliance of predeposit Appellant preferred appeal and Tribunal waived predeposit and remanded case to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide case on merit Commissioner (A) in his impugned denovo order rejected appeal and upheld order of adjudicating authority Held that - Appellant being EOU eligible to import goods without payment of duty and considering terms of payment and procurement certificate issued by Divisional authorities covering full value, there is no mis-declaration or malafide intention for evasion of duty Therefore demand of differential duty is not sustainable Accordingly, impugned order is set aside to extent of demand of differential duty of customs and appeal is allowed Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the impugned order dated 31.10.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the amendment of invoice value under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confirmation of differential duty, confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty by the adjudicating authority.
3. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of predeposit by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Consideration of application for amendment of Bill of Entry under section 149 of Customs Act by the adjudicating authority.
5. Eligibility of the appellant, an EOU, to import goods without payment of duty based on procurement certificate and payment terms.

Analysis:

The appellants filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the amendment of the invoice value under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the import of machineries by an EOU, where the value was initially declared as USD 98900 and later sought to be amended to USD 197800. The adjudicating authority rejected the request for amendment, confirmed a differential duty of Rs. 18,29,011, confiscated the goods, and imposed fines and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance of predeposit. The Tribunal, in a previous order, waived the predeposit and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority, leading to the current appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the initial procurement certificate covered the full value of the goods, and there was no intention to evade duty. The counsel provided documents supporting the payment terms and revised procurement certificate. The appellant was not pressing for an amendment of the invoice under section 149. On the other hand, the AR supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the appellant mis-declared the value and did not comply with necessary procedures.

The Tribunal analyzed the previous order and found that the adjudicating authority had gone beyond the scope of the remand by demanding differential duty instead of considering the application for amendment under section 149. Considering the EOU status of the appellant, the payment terms, and the procurement certificate covering the full value, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mis-declaration or intention to evade duty. Therefore, the demand for differential duty was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside to that extent, allowing the appeal.