9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 20 of the Customs Act regarding re-importation of goods originally exported under bond without payment of excise duty. - Determination of the type of bond required for goods exported without payment of excise duty. - Applicability of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 20(1) in the context of customs duty equal to excise duty leviable on re-imported goods. - Consideration of conflicting judgments on the interpretation of the term "bond" in Section 20 of the Customs Act. Analysis: The case involved an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The dispute arose when a consignment of canned shrimps exported by the appellants was partly rejected by the buyer in the UK and re-imported to India. The Customs authorities demanded payment of customs duty equivalent to the excise duty leviable on the goods at 15% ad valorem plus 5% thereof under Item 1B of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, amounting to Rs. 1,44,227.95. The appellants contended that the bond referred to in Section 20(c) should be construed as a customs bond, and the customs authorities were not entitled to levy customs duty equal to excise duty on the re-imported goods. The main contention revolved around the interpretation of Section 20 of the Customs Act, specifically Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 20(1). The appellants argued that the bond mentioned in Clause (c) should be understood as a customs bond, not an excise bond. They asserted that the customs authorities lacked the jurisdiction to collect customs duty equal to the excise duty leviable on the goods. However, the lower authorities did not accept this argument, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal analyzed the meaning of the term "bond" as used in Section 20 of the Customs Act. Since the Act did not provide a specific definition of "bond," the Tribunal inferred its meaning from the context. It noted that goods exported without payment of excise duty under bond typically referred to a bond executed with the excise authorities under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, the Tribunal held that when goods were exported under an excise bond without payment of excise duty, they were liable to pay customs duty equal to the excise duty on re-importation into India. However, the appellants cited a judgment by the Madras High Court in a similar case, where the court interpreted the term "bond" in Section 20 to mean a customs bond, not an excise bond. The High Court ruled that customs authorities could not levy customs duty equal to excise duty in such cases. As there was no contradictory judgment presented, the Tribunal decided to follow the Madras High Court's interpretation, ruling in favor of the appellants and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the interpretation of the term "bond" in Section 20 of the Customs Act, ultimately aligning with the Madras High Court's judgment and ruling that customs authorities could not levy customs duty equal to excise duty on goods re-imported under bond without payment of excise duty.
|
