1998 (4) TMI 265 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 179/80-Cus. and subsequent Notification No. 155/86-Cus.
2. Validity of provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Continuation of provisional assessment after debonding for home consumption.
4. Time bar for raising demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

1. The case involves the interpretation of Notification No. 179/80-Cus. and subsequent Notification No. 155/86-Cus. The notifications provided exemptions for specified goods subject to certain conditions. The change in notifications affected the duty rate applicable to imported goods for home consumption.

2. The goods in question were provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, and warehoused under Section 60. The provisional assessment required the execution of bonds until the end use of the goods was verified. The dispute arose when the original notification was rescinded, and a new notification was issued, impacting the duty rate applicable upon debonding for home consumption.

3. After debonding the goods for home consumption, the issue of whether the provisional assessment continued arose. The absence of a new bond execution and lack of clarity on the provisional assessment status led to a demand being raised under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The parties disagreed on the finality of the assessment post-debonding.

4. The question of time bar for raising the demand under Section 28(1) was raised. The appellant argued that the provisional assessment was not finalized, hence the demand was not time-barred. The respondent contended that the assessment upon debonding was final, and the demand was valid under Section 28(1).

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the provisional assessment continued post-debonding due to various factors such as the absence of bond cancellation, cross-referencing of bonds on new entries, and the ongoing verification of end use conditions. The Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remanded the case for further consideration on finalizing the provisional assessments, bond cancellations, and classification issues. The appeal succeeded by way of remand for detailed reconsideration by the original authority.