2016 (8) TMI 616 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Notification No. 22/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 exemption from payment of duty on fulfillment of conditions Held that - with regard to the shortage quantity, the duty demand was confirmed on the ground of non-fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in the exemption Notification. It is found from the available records that end use Certificate has not been produced within the stipulated time frame and no extension has been sought for by the importer. Thus, the condition of the notification has not been fulfilled by the appellant, for which, the duty liability is required to be discharged. Valuation heavy melted scrap of iron and steel concessional rate of duty - Differential duty - difference in calculation of the rate of duty by the department as well as the importer Held that - amount to be re-quantified matter remanded to the Original Authority for quantification of the correct duty liability. Appeal dismissed decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Calculation of duty amount, submission of end use certificate, interpretation of exemption notification.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the duty amount confirmed in the adjudication order, arguing that the differential duty was calculated at 35% instead of the correct tariff rate of 10% ad valorem. Additionally, the appellant claimed that since an end use certificate was submitted to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner by a third party, the differential duty should not be demanded from them.

The Tribunal examined the case and noted that during the disputed period, the appellant imported heavy melted scrap of Iron and Steel at a concessional duty rate under Notification No. 22/2002-Cus. This notification required the importer to produce an end use certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities within a specified time frame. The Customs authorities had allowed the benefit of the notification for certain quantities where the end use certificate was produced, but duty demand was confirmed for shortage quantities due to non-fulfillment of the notification conditions.

It was found that the appellant failed to produce the end use certificate within the stipulated time frame or seek an extension. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the duty liability, stating that the duty had to be discharged as the notification conditions were not met. The Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the matter to the Original Authority for quantification of the correct duty liability, considering the discrepancy in duty rate calculation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the importance of proper computation by the appropriate authority. As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of complying with notification conditions, specifically regarding the submission of end use certificates within the prescribed timeline. The judgment underscored the necessity for accurate duty calculation and proper fulfillment of statutory requirements to avoid liability issues.