2019 (10) TMI 851 - HC - Customs

Demand of Customs Duty - mis-declaration of contents - export of 1250 printed acrylic blankets - shipping bill in question has not been used to discharge liability arising from advance licence in question - HELD THAT - In the present appeals, the Appellant has discharged export obligation without using disputed shipping bills. The Customs duty cannot be demanded on imported raw material as export obligation stands discharged and redemption certificate stands issued by Competent Authority - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking quashing of the Tribunal's order allowing the Respondent-department's appeals. Mis-declaration of contents in imported raw material leading to demand of customs duty, interest, and penalty. Allegation of mis-declaration by the Respondent-Customs Authorities. Tribunal's order disregarding earlier judgments and contentions of the Appellant. Questions of law regarding the perversity of the order, justification of imposed fine, and sustainability of duty and penalty demands. Dismissal of Revenue's appeal by the Supreme Court. Factual position regarding export obligation fulfillment as per the Commissioner of Customs' affidavit. Discharge of export obligation without using disputed shipping bills leading to duty exemption. Upholding of penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the disposal of Customs Appeals arising from a common order passed by the Tribunal. The Appellant, a manufacturer exporter of textile products, imported acrylic fiber against advance licenses to manufacture and export acrylic blankets. The Respondent-Customs Authorities alleged mis-declaration of contents in the imported raw material, leading to a demand for customs duty, interest, and penalty. The Appellant challenged this demand under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Tribunal's order dated 15.01.2013 allowed the Respondent-department's appeals without considering earlier judgments and the Appellant's contention that the shipping bill in question was not used to fulfill the advance license obligation. The Appellant raised questions of law regarding the perversity of the order, justification of the imposed fine, and sustainability of duty and penalty demands. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against an earlier Tribunal's order was also noted.

During the proceedings, the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar, submitted an affidavit indicating that the export obligations of all advance licenses had been fulfilled by the Appellant. The Tribunal's previous decision in a similar case held that duty is not payable when export obligations are discharged without using disputed shipping bills. The Supreme Court upheld this decision in a subsequent appeal.

The Appellant successfully demonstrated the discharge of export obligations without using the disputed shipping bills, leading to the exemption from customs duty. The redemption certificate issued by the Competent Authority further supported the Appellant's position. Consequently, the present appeals regarding the demand of customs duty were allowed, while the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority was upheld as per the Appellant's counsel's agreement.