9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 167 - AT - CustomsRe export Re-import - Notification No. 158/95 - According to the notification the goods were required to be re-exported within 6 months of import after necessary process but the appellants could not do so even though extension of time was also granted on their request. Subsequently, the appellants requested for finalization of assessment and converted their claim for the benefit of Notification No. 94/96 dt. 16-12-96 instead of Notification No. 158/95-Cus held that the issue has to be referred to Larger Bench for a decision the question referred to LB is - Whether goods which have been re-imported and cleared availing the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. have to be held as having suffered additional customs duty leviable under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act and therefore are leviable to SAD leviable under Section 3A of Customs-Tariff Act or not?
Issues:
1. Interpretation of duty payable on re-imported goods under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. 2. Applicability of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on re-imported goods. 3. Treatment of duty paid under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. as basic customs duty or additional duty of customs. Issue 1: Interpretation of duty payable on re-imported goods under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The appellant-company claimed the benefit of Notification No. 94/96 for import of goods, seeking finalization of assessment and utilization of DEPB scrip for duty payment. The original authority held that interest was payable due to delay in DEPB debit, confirmed the demand of SAD at 4%, and deemed the duty under Notification No. 94/96 as basic customs duty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that SAD is leviable on imported goods but no interest is chargeable on duty paid via DEPB. The appellants contested the duty classification under Notification No. 94/96 as basic customs duty, leading to an appeal against the Commissioner's decision. Issue 2: Applicability of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on re-imported goods The appellant's advocate argued that re-imported goods are not subject to SAD as Section 20 of the Customs Act does not mention SAD, relying on precedents. The Department, however, cited contrary Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions to support the view that re-imported goods are to be treated as imported goods, subject to customs duty. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Sections 12 and 20 of the Customs Act, concluding that re-imported goods are to be treated as imported goods, making them liable to customs duty, including SAD. Issue 3: Treatment of duty paid under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. as basic customs duty or additional duty of customs The appellant contended that duty on re-imported goods should be treated as Central Excise duty, citing Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal examined various precedents and the text of Notification No. 94/96, noting conflicting interpretations. While some decisions suggested exemption from SAD for goods re-imported under the notification, others emphasized the levy of additional customs duty. Due to conflicting Tribunal decisions, the issue was referred to a Larger Bench for resolution. Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about interest payment, prompting a remand for further consideration by the Commissioner. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment highlighted the complexities surrounding the duty payable on re-imported goods under Notification No. 94/96-Cus., the applicability of SAD, and the classification of duty under the notification. The need for a Larger Bench to address conflicting interpretations and the remand for further consideration on interest payment underscore the nuanced legal issues at play in this case.
|
