9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Stay application regarding duty liability on imported goods under advance licences. Detailed Analysis: The appellant, a recognized trading house and merchant exporter, obtained advance licences for importing Beta Naphthol against export obligations fulfilled prior to import. The supporting manufacturer was involved in the manufacturing process as per the licence terms. However, a portion of the imported goods was not accounted for by the supporting manufacturer and was sold in Mumbai without the appellant's knowledge. The Commissioner held the appellant liable for duty on the unaccounted portion of imported goods, amounting to Rs. 18.93 lakhs, under the Customs Act, 1962. Notably, the Commissioner refrained from imposing a penalty on the appellant, recognizing their efforts to comply with the export-import policy. The appellant argued that the duty demand was time-barred due to no mis-declaration and full compliance with export obligations. They contended that the supporting manufacturer, not the appellant, should bear the liability for the unaccounted goods. The appellant emphasized that they had fulfilled all obligations and had not contravened any licensing conditions. The appellant highlighted that the Supreme Court precedent dictates that in the absence of mis-statement or suppression, the demand cannot be sustained. They argued that since they had fulfilled export obligations, the department should pursue action against the supporting manufacturer for any discrepancies. The Departmental Representative argued that the appellant, as the licence holder, was responsible for ensuring proper utilization of the imported goods as per the licence conditions. The failure to comply with Para 250 of the Export-Import Policy rendered the appellant liable for duty payment. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal observed that the appellant, as the licence holder, bore primary responsibility for compliance with licence conditions. However, the issue of shared liability with the supporting manufacturer required further examination during the main appeal hearing. The Tribunal granted a stay of recovery on the condition that the appellant deposits Rs. 9 lakhs within eight weeks. In conclusion, the Tribunal acknowledged the complexity of shared liability between the appellant and the supporting manufacturer, deferring a detailed analysis to the main appeal hearing. The stay of recovery was granted contingent upon the appellant's deposit of Rs. 9 lakhs within the specified timeframe.
|
