9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Entitlement to replenish input Coking coal by LAM coke after export obligation under Notification No. 30/97-Cus. Analysis: The appeals involved the issue of whether the appellants were entitled to replenish the input Coking coal by LAM coke after discharging their export obligation under Notification No. 30/97-Cus. The appellants had imported Lam coke due to a converter issue instead of using Coking coal for manufacturing iron and steel products. The standard input-output norms allowed duty-free import of either 1,000 kg of Coking coal or 700 kg of metallurgical coke against every 1,000 kg of steel product exported. The appellants argued that Lam coke could be used for their export products as per the Advance Licence, and they had not violated any conditions of the Notification. The Revenue contended that Coking coal was used for export products, and Lam coke was imported for replenishment, which was not in line with the Notification's provisions. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and analyzed the facts of the case. It was observed that the appellants were permitted to import either Coking coal or Lam coke for their export of iron and steel products. The appellants had initially used Coking coal but later imported Lam coke due to a technical issue. The Tribunal found that the appellants had imported Lam coke under a valid licence and had not violated any standard input-output norms. The Department's argument that Coking coal should be used for replenishment was rejected as both Coking coal and Lam coke were permissible inputs under the Notification. The Tribunal concluded that there was no breach of any conditions of the Notification or the import licence, and the choice of Notification for import was not against legal provisions. Therefore, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. In summary, the Tribunal determined that the appellants were within their rights to import Lam coke for replenishment, as both Coking coal and Lam coke were acceptable inputs under the relevant Notification. The Tribunal found no violation of conditions and allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the choice of Notification for import was a beneficial decision for the exporter.
|
