2018 (3) TMI 873 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - assessment order passed by Proper Officer or not? - benefit of N/N. 69/11-Cus - importer fails to claim the notification, which was claimed at a later stage - Held that - As per the certificate of origin, there is no dispute that the goods were imported from Japan - any beneficial notification even if at the time of clearance of goods is not claimed, the same can be claimed at a later stage. There is no infirmity in the impugned order, which is only directed the assessing authority to reconsider the Bills of Entry in the light of N/N. 69/2011-Cus - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 69/2011-Cus not granted during assessment leading to excess duty payment.
2. Maintainability of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of assessment order.
3. Onus of claiming notification benefit on the assessee.
4. Department's responsibility to verify the veracity of claims based on goods origin.
5. Claiming beneficial notification at a later stage.

Analysis:

1. The respondent imported Rayon Yarn entitled to duty rate under Notification No. 69/2011-Cus. The assessing officer did not grant this benefit during assessment, resulting in excess duty payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment, directing reassessment considering the exemption granted by the notification.

2. The Revenue appealed, arguing that as there was no assessment order by the proper officer, the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable. The onus of claiming the notification benefit was on the assessee, and failure to do so absolved the department from verifying the claim based on goods origin.

3. The Revenue contended that the importer's failure to claim the notification benefit, based on goods imported from Japan, released the department from verifying the claim during imports. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly directed reassessment to consider the eligibility of Notification No. 69/2011-Cus, which was not initially considered.

4. After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal noted that the respondent did not claim the notification benefit despite importing goods from Japan. The Tribunal affirmed that even if a beneficial notification is not initially claimed during goods clearance, it can be claimed later. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order to reassess the Bills of Entry in light of Notification No. 69/2011-Cus.

5. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing the possibility of claiming beneficial notifications at a later stage. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the direction for reassessment based on the notification.