2024 (5) TMI 944 - AT - Customs

Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) - Imports goods as Cold Rolled Flat products of Stainless Steel -Originating in or exported from China - Fulfillment of Export Obligations under Advance Authorization Scheme - Penalty u/s 117 - HELD THAT - We find that, the department has demanded the anti dumping duty of customs. However, admittedly the goods were cleared under advance authorisation scheme according to which all the duties are exempted by way of debiting in the advance license scheme. In the present case, the adjudicating authority has denied the exemption on the ground that export obligation has not been fulfilled. Now the learned counsel has produced the Export Obligation (EODC Certificate) which, prima facie, shows that export obligation under advance authorization scheme has been complied with accordingly the sole ground for denying the exemption by the adjudicating authority does not exist. However, the adjudicating authority has not seen the EODC during the adjudication. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered in light of EODC submitted by the appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration that the export obligation has been fulfilled.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on imported goods, self-assessment of Bills of Entry under Section 17(1) of the Customs Act, 1961, and the fulfillment of export obligations under the Advance Authorization Scheme.

Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The appellant, a manufacturer and exporter of stainless-steel utensils, imported Cold-rolled Flat products of stainless steel. The department alleged that these goods attracted Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) as per Notification No. 61/2015-Cus (ADD) dated 11.12.2015 due to their origin from China. The appellant argued that the goods were cleared under the Advance Authorization Scheme, exempting them from ADD and other duties. The Tribunal found that the export obligation had been fulfilled based on the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) submitted by the appellant, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order for reconsideration.

Self-assessment of Bills of Entry:
The department contended that the appellant self-assessed Bills of Entry without imposing anti-dumping duty, leading to a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the self-assessment was tentative and subject to statutory provisions allowing amendments post-clearance based on documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's compliance with export obligations rendered the penalty groundless, citing precedents to support the argument.

Fulfillment of Export Obligations under Advance Authorization Scheme:
The appellant maintained that the export obligation under the Advance Authorization Scheme had been met, supported by the EODC. The Tribunal observed that the denial of duty exemption by the adjudicating authority was based on unfulfilled export obligations, which was disproved by the EODC. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of verifying fulfillment of export obligations before denying duty exemptions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision considering the fulfillment of export obligations as evidenced by the EODC, highlighting the significance of proper verification and documentation in customs proceedings.