9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Eligibility of goods imported for exemption under Notifications 280/76, 62/85, and 95/85. Analysis: The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal involved the determination of the eligibility of goods imported by the appellants for the benefit of exemption under Notifications 280/76, 62/85, and 95/85. The appellants imported wood/timber of Burmese origin and sought a refund of basic customs duty under Notification 280/76, along with exemption from additional duty of customs under Notification 62/85 and auxiliary duty under Notification 95/85. The lower authorities rejected the refund claims, stating that the appellants could not avail benefits under both Notifications 280/76 and 62/85 simultaneously. The lower appellate authority clarified that the appellants must choose between the two notifications based on the origin of the goods to determine the applicable duties. If the goods originated from Burma, they could avail of the benefits under Notification 280/76, while if they originated from any country, they could opt for the concessions under Notification 62/85. The lower appellate authority emphasized that the appellants could not selectively choose benefits from both notifications to avoid paying the required duties. The Appellate Tribunal considered the relevant Notifications, including Notification No. 280/76-Cus., which grants exemption to goods manufactured in Burma from customs duty, specifically exempting wood and timber from entire customs duty. Notification No. 62/85-Cus. exempts certain categories of wood from customs duty exceeding 10% ad valorem and from additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act. Notification No. 95/85-Cus. exempts goods from customs duty specified in the schedule from auxiliary duty, subject to the conditions of the respective notifications. The Tribunal noted that in order to benefit from exemptions under additional duty and auxiliary duty, the goods must incur a basic customs duty of 10% ad valorem. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the goods were entirely exempt from basic customs duty, citing various citations that were deemed irrelevant to the case at hand. The Tribunal concluded that the goods did not meet the conditions stipulated in Notification 95/85 for the exemption from auxiliary duty, as they did not suffer the 10% basic duty as required under Notification 62/85. In upholding the impugned orders and dismissing the appeals, the Tribunal clarified that while the benefits of the Notifications could be extended to goods, in this case, the appellants could not avail benefits under all three Notifications simultaneously. The goods did not fulfill the conditions outlined in Notification 95/85 regarding the 10% basic duty levy under Notification 62/85, leading to the denial of the exemptions claimed by the appellants.
|
