9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding import of Cassia (Whole) from Singapore under duty exemption notification; Confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act; Imposition of penalty under Section 112; Interpretation of Import Policy 1997-2002; Clarification by DGFT; Binding nature of DGFT's clarification on Courts and Tribunals; Applicability of input-output norms under Advance Licence; Precedents on interpretation of fiscal statutes; Balance of convenience in favor of the appellants. Analysis: 1. Import of Cassia (Whole) and Duty Exemption: The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original confiscating the import of Cassia (Whole) from Singapore under two Bills of Entries, claiming duty exemption under Notification 23/97-Cus. The appellant imported the raw materials for jobbing purposes, i.e., for extraction of Cassia Oil Crude and subsequent export. The order held the import contrary to law, invoking Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, leading to confiscation and imposition of penalties under Section 112. 2. Interpretation of Import Policy 1997-2002: The central issue revolved around the interpretation of the Import Policy, specifically Paragraph 7.12, governing jobbing activities. The appellant argued that the import was permissible under Paragraph 7.12 without the need for an import license, citing the linkage with the Department of Revenue's notifications. The appellant contended that the import was in compliance with the duty exemption notification and the minimum value addition requirement. 3. DGFT's Clarification and Legal Precedents: The appellant emphasized that any clarification by DGFT should be viewed in light of the clear policy provisions and not as binding on Courts and Tribunals. Citing legal precedents, the appellant argued that interpretations favorable to the assessee should be preferred, as established by various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The appellant highlighted that the DGFT's clarification should not override the explicit provisions of the Import Policy. 4. Applicability of Input-Output Norms under Advance Licence: The debate also encompassed the applicability of input-output norms under Advance Licence to the import of Cassia (Whole) for jobbing purposes. The Tribunal concluded that since no import license was required under Paragraph 7.12, the imposition of norms associated with an Advance Licence would be an incorrect interpretation of the policy, especially when the Customs Notification did not mandate such conditions. 5. Balance of Convenience and Relief Granted: Considering the arguments presented and the analysis of the relevant provisions, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants. The Order-in-Original was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief. The Tribunal directed the release of the goods held under Customs custody promptly, acknowledging the extended duration of the goods in custody and the appellant's contractual obligations with the foreign supplier. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the correct interpretation of the Import Policy, the non-binding nature of DGFT's clarification conflicting with policy provisions, and the application of favorable interpretations to the appellant. The balance of convenience and adherence to legal principles led to the setting aside of the impugned order and the grant of relief to the appellants.
|
