1997 (4) TMI 250 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for reassessment of imported goods for benefit of notification exemption.
2. Interpretation of Customs Act provisions regarding reassessment.
3. Applicability of EPCG license for concessional rate of duty.

Analysis:

The appellant imported packaging machinery and sought clearance under Para 22 of the Import Policy, claiming assessment at specified tariff rates. Subsequently, the appellant obtained an EPCG license which entitled them to concessional duty rates as per Notification 110/75. The Customs refused reassessment of the goods based on the Commissioner's order communicated through the Assistant Commissioner, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal addressed the preliminary objection regarding the clarity of the Commissioner's order communicated through the Assistant Commissioner. It was found that the letter clearly indicated the Commissioner's decision, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) order on the appeal. The refusal for reassessment was based on the grounds that the bills of entry had been cleared after assessment and that the EPCG license could have been obtained earlier, as per Para 43(A) of the policy.

The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Customs Act concerning reassessment and noted that while there is no specific provision for reassessment, the appellant was entitled to claim the benefit of the notification exemption even after assessment. The Tribunal highlighted the precedence of allowing reassessment before duty payment, citing a previous decision by the Bombay High Court in a similar case. It was acknowledged that the Commissioner (Appeals) would likely order reassessment if the appellant had appealed after paying duty to determine eligibility for the notification benefit.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order that denied reassessment. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to re-examine the appellant's claim regarding the EPCG license and eligibility for the notification benefit, emphasizing the importance of considering the appellant's entitlement to the concessional duty rates granted under the license.