2004 (2) TMI 143 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the goods imported are chargeable to special additional duty.
2. Determination of the relevant date for the levy of special additional duty.
3. Applicability of Trade Notices and judicial precedents in determining the levy of special additional duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal raised the question of whether the imported goods are subject to special additional duty. The adjudicating authority initially held that the goods are indeed chargeable to special additional duty at a rate of 4% based on a specific notification. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, citing a different Tribunal decision and a Trade Notice. The Commissioner emphasized that the new levy of special additional duty was not applicable at the time of import of the goods in question.

Issue 2:
The crucial issue was to determine the relevant date for the levy of special additional duty. The Revenue contended that the duty was justified as it was introduced before the goods were cleared from the bonded warehouse for home consumption. The respondent argued that since the special additional duty was a new levy introduced after the import but before clearance, it should not be applicable. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that the date of clearance from the bonded warehouse is crucial for determining the liability for customs duty and any additional duty.

Issue 3:
The respondent relied on a Trade Notice and a Tribunal decision to support their argument against the levy of special additional duty. However, the Tribunal found that the Trade Notice and Board's letter cited by the respondent were not applicable to the respondent's case since they were specific to 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU). The Tribunal concluded that the Supreme Court decision regarding the date of clearance from the bonded warehouse was directly relevant to the case at hand, thereby upholding the original authority's order and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in reversing the original authority's order. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision and reinstated the order of the adjudicating authority, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the Revenue.