2021 (3) TMI 1308 - AT - Customs

Time Limitation - Recovery of differential duty - barred by being beyond the normal period of limitation prescribed in Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962? - HELD THAT - Though in the valuation of the stock remaining after fulfilling the prescribed obligation, the appellant chose the most favourable from among First In First Out (FIFO) , Last In First Out (LIFO) , average price and weighted average price and which was sought to be substituted by that most favourable to Revenue, it is also beyond the pale of controversy that a proper method was pinpointed only long after the duty liability had been discharged. It is also evident that, even in the absence of specific declaration of the method adopted, the computation sufficed as suitable indication. The finding in the impugned order that there has been no suppression, or intent to evade duty, is, consequently, unassailable. The absence of any ingredient among those specified in Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 would justify, to no lesser extent, the lack of recourse also to the extended period of limitation for recovery of differential duty and interest thereon. The claim of the appellant cannot be discarded - Appeal is allowed on the finding of applicability of limitation without going into the correctness of the computation of duty liability.

Issues:
Computation of liability to duties of customs on imported goods remaining after export obligation fulfillment; Application of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of differential duty; Valuation method for unutilized goods; Applicability of penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962; Interpretation of Circular No. 27/2007-Cus.; Legal basis for recovery of duties on conditionally exempted goods; Compliance with post-importation conditions for exemption; Stock valuation methods; Recourse to extended period of limitation for recovery of duty; Lack of intent to evade duty.

Computation of Liability to Duties of Customs:
The dispute in this case revolves around the computation of liability to duties of customs on imported goods that remained after the completion of export obligation fulfillment. The appellant imported goods under an advance license and discharged duty liability based on a certain assessable value. However, customs authorities demanded differential duty based on a higher value, leading to a dispute over the correct duty amount.

Application of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant argued that the demand for recovery of differential duty should be barred by the limitation period prescribed in Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The first appellate authority's decision to confirm the demand despite setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A was challenged, emphasizing the need for compliance with legal provisions regarding duty recovery.

Valuation Method for Unutilized Goods:
The case involved the valuation of unutilized imported goods, with customs authorities relying on a different value than that used by the appellant. The dispute centered on the appropriate method of valuation, with the appellant contesting the validity of the alternative computation of duties.

Applicability of Penalty under Section 114A:
The appellant contested the imposition of penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that the circumstances did not warrant such penalties. The interpretation of Circular No. 27/2007-Cus. was also debated in relation to penalty imposition and duty computation.

Legal Basis for Recovery of Duties on Conditionally Exempted Goods:
The legal basis for the recovery of duties on conditionally exempted goods was examined, with reference to relevant case law and interpretations of exemption notifications. The appellant's compliance with post-importation conditions for exemption and the subsequent duty liability were key points of contention.

Stock Valuation Methods and Compliance:
The appellant's choice of stock valuation method after fulfilling obligations was scrutinized, highlighting the importance of accurate valuation in determining duty liability. The absence of specific declaration of the method adopted raised questions regarding the correctness of the duty computation.

Recourse to Extended Period of Limitation:
The issue of whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the recovery of differential duty and interest thereon was discussed. The appellant's argument against the applicability of the extended period was based on the lack of intent to evade duty and the absence of specific grounds for penalty imposition.

Lack of Intent to Evade Duty:
The absence of intent to evade duty was a crucial factor in the decision, with the tribunal finding that there was no suppression or evasion of duty. This lack of intent, coupled with the absence of certain ingredients specified in the Customs Act, 1962, justified the decision to allow the appeal based on the limitation period without delving into the correctness of duty computation.

← Previous Next →