2016 (10) TMI 154 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 - imposition of penalty - import of goods under ATA Carnet Registration No. 1036 dated 16/12/2011 and ATA Carnet Imp. Registration No. 1037 dated 16/12/2011 - ATA Carnets were valid upto 06/12/2012 - failure to export goods within the stipulated period - Held that - The exemption contained in the said notification is available to the importer, subject to fulfillment of the condition namely, that the goods shall be exported within six months from the date of importation or within a further period of six months as may be extended by the Proper officer. The law is well settled that an exemption notification was to be interpreted in line with the words employed by it and not on any other basis; and that a person who claims exemption or concession, must establish clearly that he is covered by the provisions contained therein. In absence of fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in the notification dated 28/3/1990, the duty exemption provided therein is not available to the respondent importer - The Department at liberty to proceed against the concerned person for recovery of the adjudged dues - appeal disposed off - decided in favor of Revenue.

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with customs duty exemption conditions under ATA Carnet scheme.
2. Authority of Commissioner (Appeals) to deviate from exemption notification norms.
3. Responsibility for duty liability under the Carnet scheme.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the importation of goods under ATA Carnet for demonstration purposes, with a requirement to export the goods within a specified period. The appellant failed to export the goods within the stipulated time, leading to proceedings for confiscation and penalties by the Customs Department. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the importer's appeal, prompting the Revenue to appeal to the Tribunal.

2. The Revenue argued that the importer did not comply with the notification conditions, making them ineligible for exemptions. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to override the notification norms in favor of the importer.

3. The respondent contended that the non-fulfillment of the notification conditions was not due to their fault, suggesting that confiscation and penalties were unjustified. The respondent also proposed that any duty liability could be demanded from the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the entity that executed the bond for the goods' importation under the Carnet scheme.

4. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the submissions from both parties and examined the records to make a decision.

5. The Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 157/90-Cus, which exempts imported goods from customs duty if exported within a specified period. The notification required goods to be exported within one year from importation to avail the duty exemption.

6. As the goods were not exported within the specified period, the Tribunal concluded that the importer did not fulfill the notification conditions for obtaining the benefits. The Tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications must be interpreted based on the words used, and claimants must clearly establish eligibility for the provisions.

7. The Tribunal held that duty exemption was not available to the importer due to non-compliance with the notification conditions. The issue of duty collection from the importer or the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry was not addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leaving it open for the Department to pursue recovery of dues from the concerned party.

8. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and ruled in favor of the Revenue, allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of the relevant notification and legal principles.

← Previous Next →