9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1452 - AT - CustomsBenefit of the DFRC licences - N/N. 48/2000, dated 25.04.2000 - benefit denied for the reason that the DFRC licences were issued initially to M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., and were subsequently issued to the importer - Held that - the DFRC licences were dated 11.05.2001 as well as 13.08.2001. The date of shipment is 21.11.2002, for which, the Bills of Entry were filed on 11.12.2002 - There is nothing on record to suggest that the date of the DFRC licences were otherwise. Further, the scheme of DFRC provides for procurement of valid licences subsequent to its issue the purposes of import by third parties - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Validity of DFRC licences for warehousing under Notification No.48/2000 for imported goods - Duty liability based on date of shipment - Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.C.CUS.279/2006. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of DFRC licences The case involved the respondents filing five bills of entry for warehousing under the DFRC Scheme for Non-alloy Steel Blooms purchased from the original importer. The DFRC licences produced by the respondents were found to have expired, leading to the denial of benefits under Notification No.48/2000. The main contention was whether the licences were valid at the time of shipment, as per the Import-Export Policy. Analysis: The Tribunal observed that the DFRC licences were initially issued to another party but subsequently transferred to the importer. The date of shipment was crucial in determining the validity of the licences, as per the Import-Export Policy. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of DFRC licences, setting aside the duty demands. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the licences were valid on the date of shipment, covering the imported goods. The scheme allowed for the procurement of valid licences after the issue for import by third parties, supporting the conclusion that the licences were valid at the time of shipment. Issue 2: Duty liability based on date of shipment The Revenue argued that the duty liability should be based on the date of shipment, not the date of import. Since the licences were obtained after the import, the Revenue contended that duty payment was necessary. Analysis: The Tribunal considered the date of shipment as per the Bill of Lading and the dates of the DFRC licences. It was established that the licences were valid at the time of shipment, even though they were procured after the date of shipment. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the licences covered the goods under import, rejecting the Revenue's argument for duty payment based on the date of import. The duty liability was not upheld due to the validity of the licences at the time of shipment. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the validity of the DFRC licences at the time of shipment, as per the Import-Export Policy, and the scheme's provision for procurement of valid licences post-issue for import by third parties.
|
