9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1570 - AT - CustomsExport of cold rolled galvanized non alloy corrugated steel sheets of zink coating and flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, cold rolled, not clad, plated or coated products - non-payment of export duty at the time of export - relevant date of export - whether date of export is the date of let export order or not? - case of appellant is only that since shipping bill was filed on earlier date but it is due to the delay by the Customs, the export has taken place on 10.05.2008 and therefore the appellant is not responsible. Held that - This plea of the appellant will be of no help as there is no relaxation provided in the law for delay in export as regard levy of export duty - As per the Notification No. 66/2008-Cus dated 10.05.2008, the export duty was levied with effect from 10.05.2008 and the export has also taken place on 10.05.2008, as per the let export order. Therefore, the export duty is very much payable on the said export. This issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Goa vs. Fomento Resources Pvt. Limited 2016 (11) TMI 226 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it is made clear that the date of export should be the date of let export order. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of export duty based on the date of the Let Export Order. 2. Responsibility for delay in export and its impact on duty liability. 3. Determination of the relevant date for the imposition of export duty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of export duty based on the date of the Let Export Order: The core issue revolves around whether the export duty imposed by Notification No. 66/2008-Cus dated 10.05.2008 applies to the appellant's goods. The appellant exported cold rolled galvanized non-alloy corrugated steel sheets and flat rolled products under six shipping bills, with the Let Export Order issued on 10.05.2008. The notification imposing export duty came into effect on the same date. The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa vs. Fomento Resources Pvt. Limited, and Jindal Saw Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai, to affirm that the date of the Let Export Order is the relevant date for determining the applicability of export duty. Consequently, since the Let Export Order was issued on 10.05.2008, the export duty was applicable to the appellant's goods. 2. Responsibility for delay in export and its impact on duty liability: The appellant argued that the delay in export was due to customs procedures and not their fault. However, the Tribunal dismissed this plea, stating that there is no provision in the law that provides relaxation for delays caused by customs in the context of export duty imposition. The Tribunal emphasized that the responsibility for paying the export duty lies with the exporter once the Let Export Order is issued, regardless of any procedural delays by customs. 3. Determination of the relevant date for the imposition of export duty: The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the Let Export Order date in determining the applicable export duty rate. Referring to Section 16(1) and Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal reiterated that the rate of duty and tariff valuation applicable to export goods is based on the date the proper officer makes an order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation. The Tribunal cited the case of CCE, Goa vs. Fomento Resources Pvt. Limited, where it was held that the relevant date for duty assessment is the date of the Let Export Order, not the date of physical loading. This principle was consistently upheld in other referenced cases, reinforcing that any change in the duty rate after the Let Export Order does not affect the duty liability for goods already cleared for export. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the export duty imposed by Notification No. 66/2008-Cus dated 10.05.2008 was applicable to the appellant's goods based on the date of the Let Export Order. The appellant's argument regarding customs delay was not accepted, as the law does not provide for such relaxation. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the demand for customs duty and dismissed the appeal.
|
