2017 (9) TMI 1272 - AT - Customs

Safeguard Duty - Advance License Scheme - N/N. 96/2009-Cus dated 11.09.2009 and N/N. 98/2009-Cus dated 11.09.2009 - goods imported from People s Republic of China - N/N. 04/2012-(S.G.) dated 05.10.2012 - Held that - the issue is no more res-integra and stand settled by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balkrishna Industries Limited Vs. UOI 2015 (12) TMI 1390 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that the safeguard duty imposed under Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, vide N/N. 4/2012-Cus is leviable, as the same is country specific, whereas the other two notifications are not country specific. Inasmuch as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty, in terms of Section 8C- appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption from payment of safeguard duty for imported Carbon Black
2. Interpretation of Notification No.96/2009-Cus and Notification No.4/2012-Cus (S.G.)
3. Applicability of safeguard duty under Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975

Analysis:

Issue 1: Exemption from payment of safeguard duty for imported Carbon Black
The appellant imported Carbon Black from China and claimed exemption from safeguard duty under Notification No.96/2009-Cus and Notification No.98/2009-Cus. However, the Revenue contended that safeguard duty was required to be paid under Notification No.04/2012-(S.G.) for goods imported from China. The demands were confirmed, and penalties were imposed by the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled against the appellant, emphasizing that the exemption under Notification No.96/2009-Cus does not extend to safeguard duty under Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as per the strict interpretation of exemption notifications.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification No.96/2009-Cus and Notification No.4/2012-Cus (S.G.)
The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that while Notification No.96/2009-Cus exempts materials imported against an advance license from safeguard duty under Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Act, it does not provide exemption from safeguard duty under Section 8C. On the other hand, Notification No.4/2012-Cus (S.G.) imposes safeguard duty under Section 8C on goods imported from China. The strict construction of exemption notifications was emphasized, leading to the conclusion that the imported goods were liable to safeguard duty under Section 8C as per Notification No.4/2012-Cus (S.G.).

Issue 3: Applicability of safeguard duty under Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Balkrishna Industries Limited Vs. UOI, where it was held that safeguard duty under Section 8C is leviable on goods imported from specific countries, such as China, despite exemptions under other notifications. The High Court's ruling established that when there is no exemption from safeguard duty under Section 8C, the importer is obligated to pay the safeguard duty. The Tribunal, following the precedent set by the Bombay High Court, rejected the appeals as the issue was settled and no contrary decision was presented by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of safeguard duty under Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, on the imported Carbon Black from China, based on the specific provisions of the relevant notifications and the legal interpretation of exemption clauses.