2018 (12) TMI 1859 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of goods - Levy of admitted duty plus differential duty - Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Since the directions contained in the impugned communication dated 7-4-2018 were for provisional release of the goods and in absence of final determination of the duty liability, the appeal filed by the appellant can be considered as pre-mature and cannot be entertained by the Tribunal at this juncture. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Provisional release of goods under Customs Act, 1962 pending final determination of duty liability.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against a communication from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs regarding the provisional release of goods subject to certain conditions. The Commissioner of Customs allowed the provisional release of goods under specific Bill of Entry numbers, requiring payment of admitted duty liability and a differential duty amount, along with the execution of a Bank Guarantee. Despite notice, no one appeared for the appellant during the hearing. The impugned communication dated 7-4-2018 directed compliance with specified conditions to safeguard the revenue's interest. The order was considered to be passed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the assessment of the Bills of Entry was not finalized at that time. Since the appeal was filed prematurely before the final determination of duty liability, the Tribunal concluded that it could not be entertained at that stage. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merits in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court.

This judgment revolves around the provisional release of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, pending the final determination of duty liability. The Commissioner of Customs issued directions for the provisional release of goods under specific Bill of Entry numbers, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions. The Tribunal emphasized that the order was akin to one passed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the absence of a final duty liability determination at the time of the communication. As the appeal was considered premature since the duty liability had not been conclusively established, the Tribunal held that it could not entertain the appeal at that juncture. Despite the absence of representation from the appellant, the Tribunal based its decision on the procedural aspect of the case and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the necessity for appeals to be filed at the appropriate stage of duty liability determination under the Customs Act, 1962.