2017 (4) TMI 1001 - AT - Customs

Demand of duty on relinquished goods after assessment - Scope of Section 23(2) of customs act, 1962 - import of vessels for the purpose of breaking - It is their contention that the Dept is at liberty to dispose of the goods without notice to the appellant in view of Sec 48 of the Customs Act since the appellant relinquished the title on the goods. - Held that - the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to analyze and examine the representation of the appellant dt 11.5.2006 informing the relinquishment of title of the goods on which, the duty has been demanded. - The appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Import of vessels for breaking - Provisional assessment - Classification and dutiability of goods on board - Differential duty confirmation - Relinquishment of title under Sec. 23(2) of Customs Act - Appeal challenging assessment order - Remand for ascertaining SED rates.

Analysis:
The case involved the import of vessels for breaking during 1992-96, where the appellant filed nine Bills of Entry that were provisionally assessed due to lack of original documents and clarification on the classification and dutiability of goods on board. After prolonged litigation, the Asstt. Commissioner confirmed a differential duty on fuel oil and provision stores of the vessels. The appellant, in response, submitted a representation on 11.5.2006 intending to relinquish the title of the goods under Sec. 23(2) of the Customs Act, contending they should not be liable to pay duty. The Ld Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment order but remanded the matter to ascertain SED rates, leading to the appellant's appeal.

The appellant argued in their appeal grounds that after the confirmation of demand, they had relinquished the title of goods as per Sec. 23(2) of the Customs Act, thus should not be liable to pay duty. They further contended that the Department could dispose of the goods without notice since they had relinquished the title. On the other hand, the Ld AR for the Revenue highlighted that the appellant informed about relinquishing the title post the assessment order, which was not addressed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Ld Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the matter, prompting the Revenue to request remand for examining the implications of the appellant's title relinquishment.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, agreed with the Revenue's contention and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to analyze the representation made by the appellant regarding the relinquishment of title of goods on which duty was demanded. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, and the matter was remanded for further examination in light of the observations made. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need to address the issue of title relinquishment and its impact on duty recovery.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD showcases the complexities surrounding the provisional assessment, duty confirmation, and the subsequent implications of relinquishing title under the Customs Act, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further examination.