2016 (9) TMI 26 - AT - Customs

Demand of duty imposition of penalty under section 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 import of various broadcasting equipment vide Bill of Entry 03.07.2010 exemption Notification No. 13/2010-Cus dated 19.02.010 Held that - the goods have been imported for Commonwealth Games, 2010 and the importer name is specifically mentioned as Doordarshan - Prasar Bharti/ Shaf Broadcast for Commonwealth Games, 2010 , New Delhi, thus, benefit of notification available. Further, there is no allegation of any misuse or diversion of the impugned goods for other then intended purpose. It is also recorded that all the goods imported, duty free in terms of the said notification, have been, in fact, exported out of country within the stipulated period of the said notification. Bill of entry needs to be amended to find out the position of appellant as the importer of goods - appeal allowed duty and penalty not to be imposed decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Exemption denial under Notification No. 13/2010-Cus for imported goods used in Commonwealth Games, 2010.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Commissioner's order denying exemption under Notification No. 13/2010-Cus for goods imported for broadcasting the Commonwealth Games, 2010. The appellant, a consortium, imported broadcasting equipment for the International Broadcast Centre at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi. The Commissioner disallowed the exemption, imposed a duty demand of ?2,12,97,005, and penalties under Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that they were eligible for exemption as the goods were imported on behalf of Prasar Bharti for the Commonwealth Games, 2010.

The appellant argued that the exemption was denied based on the notification allowing exemption only for imports made by Prasar Bharti. The appellant's name was mentioned in the Bill of Entry alongside M/s Doordarshan - Prasar Bharti. The appellant emphasized that all documents indicated Prasar Bharti's involvement, including the consignee in the airway bill and the re-export documents. The goods were imported for and used in the Commonwealth Games, 2010, and were re-exported within the stipulated period. The appellant asserted that the denial of exemption lacked merit and should be set aside.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the lower authority's order did not clearly state the reason for denying exemption. The goods were imported for the Commonwealth Games, 2010, with the importer mentioned as "Doordarshan - Prasar Bharti/ Shaf Broadcast for Commonwealth Games, 2010," New Delhi. The Tribunal questioned how the original authority identified the appellant as the importer and highlighted the absence of misuse or diversion of the goods. The Tribunal considered the Board Circular and amendments in the notification, emphasizing the government's intent for duty-free import during the relevant period. The Tribunal distinguished a previous decision and concluded that Prasar Bharti was directly involved in the import, use, and re-export of the goods.

In light of the analysis, the Tribunal found no merit in the Commissioner's order and set it aside, allowing the appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 29/07/2016.