|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 663 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 1074
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of the Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings.
3. Classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
4. Issuance of Concession Certificate for imported raw materials.
Summary:
Issue 1: Jurisdiction and Authority of the Commissioner of Central Excise
The Commissioner of Central Excise passed an order on 31-3-2008 confirming the duty demand and penalties on the petitioner company. The petitioners argued that the Commissioner decided the classification of goods, which was not part of the show cause notice, thus acting beyond his jurisdiction. The Court found that the Commissioner's decision on classification was inappropriate as it was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, who was statutorily authorized to decide such issues. The Court quashed the Commissioner's order, noting it was contrary to the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.
Issue 2: Principles of Natural Justice in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
The Deputy Commissioner's order dated 17-6-2008 was challenged on the grounds of violating natural justice principles, including denying cross-examination of experts and being influenced by the Commissioner's earlier order. The Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner's order was a verbatim reproduction of the Commissioner's order, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. The Court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must act independently and not be influenced by higher authorities. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner's order was set aside, and a fresh decision was ordered.
Issue 3: Classification of Goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act
The dispute centered on whether the petitioner's product should be classified under Sub-Heading No. 8544.70 or 9001.1000. The Court noted that the classification issue was still pending before the Deputy Commissioner, who was directed to decide it independently and without influence from the Commissioner's annulled order. The Court highlighted that the Commissioner's attempt to guide the Deputy Commissioner was illegal and undermined the latter's quasi-judicial authority.
Issue 4: Issuance of Concession Certificate for Imported Raw Materials
Regarding the import of raw materials at a concessional rate of duty, the petitioners contended that the Customs authorities could not deny the benefits of the exemption notification without finalizing the classification of goods. The Court directed the release of deposited amounts towards the final duty liability and ordered the respondents to issue the necessary Concession Certificates as per Notification No. 24/2005.
Conclusion:
The Court quashed the Commissioner's order dated 31-3-2008 and the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 17-6-2008, directing a fresh decision on the classification issue. The petitions were disposed of with specific directions regarding the issuance of Concession Certificates and the release of deposited amounts. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and maintaining the independence of quasi-judicial authorities.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1067
Issues involved: Challenge against non-speaking order of assessment u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act for goods covered by Shipping Bills.
Summary:
The High Court of Calcutta addressed a writ application challenging a non-speaking order of assessment by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs Export Department. The petitioner requested for speaking orders to be passed regarding the shipping bills within a specified time frame. The Court noted that u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act mandates assessment through a speaking order to facilitate a fair appeal process. However, the petitioner's request for a speaking order was made a year after the goods were cleared and duty was paid. The Court emphasized that the purpose of u/s 17(5) is to provide reasons for assessment for a fair appeal process. It was highlighted that the authorities should pass a speaking order unless the importers or exporters confirm acceptance of the assessment in writing. The Court found that the request for a speaking order should have been made promptly upon receipt of the final assessment, rather than two years later. Consequently, the Court deemed the writ petition as barred by delay and dismissed it solely on that ground. Affidavits were not called for, and allegations not supported by record were deemed as not admitted. The Court directed for urgent certified copies of the order to be provided to the parties upon application and compliance with formalities.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1066
Issues Involved:
1. Seizure of goods and passport by Customs Authorities.
2. Non-issuance of show cause notice within six months.
3. Extension of the six-month period by the Commissioner of Customs.
4. Retention of the petitioner's passport by Customs Authorities.
Summary:
1. Seizure of Goods and Passport by Customs Authorities:
The petitioner, a permanent citizen of India, was intercepted by Customs Officers at Kolkata Airport on his return from Hong Kong via Dhaka. Upon searching his baggage, Customs Authorities seized 50 wrist-watches, 19 track pants, and an unbranded LED Video Processor u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was subsequently arrested u/s 104 of the Customs Act.
2. Non-Issuance of Show Cause Notice within Six Months:
The petitioner argued that no show cause notice was issued within six months as mandated by Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which necessitates the return of the seized goods if no notice is given within this period.
3. Extension of the Six-Month Period by the Commissioner of Customs:
The respondents contended that the six-month period was extended by the Commissioner of Customs by an order dated 19th April, 2012, communicated to the petitioner on 2nd May, 2012. The petitioner challenged the validity of this extension, suggesting it was backdated. However, the Court found no conclusive evidence to support this claim and observed that the extension was made to complete the investigation, as per the Supreme Court's guidelines in I.J. Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs v. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh.
4. Retention of the Petitioner's Passport by Customs Authorities:
The petitioner contended that his passport was wrongfully retained by the Customs Authorities. The Court noted that the investigation was ongoing and declined to order the return of the passport at this stage. The Customs Authorities were advised to inform the Regional Passport Officer about the wrongful import for further action in accordance with the law.
Conclusion:
The Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to provide the petitioner a post-decisional hearing within 15 days of the order's communication. If no show cause notice is issued within the extended period, the goods must be returned. The writ application was disposed of with instructions for all parties to act on a signed photocopy of the order's operative part.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1049
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai allowed the application for extension of stay of recovery based on previous decisions, including IPCL vs. CCE Vadodara and CCE vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., as well as judgments from the Hon'ble High Courts. The appellant was not held responsible for the pendency of the appeal.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1043
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to a delay of 279 days, which could not be condoned as sufficient cause was not shown. The Miscellaneous Application and Stay Petition were also dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1028
Issues involved: Application for waiver of predeposit of penalties u/s 112 of Customs Act, 1962 for truck owners and drivers.
For the penalty imposed on eight truck owners, the contention was that the trucks are in possession of the Department, ensuring safeguarding of Revenue's interest. The driver and Khalasi of the truck were directed to make specific predeposits within a set timeframe, with remaining dues waived upon compliance and recovery stayed during the appeal process.
Regarding the owners of the trucks, the requirement of predeposit was waived, and recovery stayed during the pendency of appeals.
The advocate for the applicants highlighted that the trucks were deteriorating while lying with the Department, allowing the applicants to apply for early hearing if needed.
Stay petitions were disposed of as per the above decisions.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1027
The Gujarat High Court adjourned two petitions seeking interest on drawback benefits paid after a delay, as the Department challenged the judgments in the Supreme Court. The petitions can be taken up again after the Supreme Court's decision.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1001
Issues involved: Interpretation of undertaking for pre-deposit amount, validity of bank guarantee, jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal.
Interpretation of undertaking for pre-deposit amount: The petitioner contended that there was no undertaking to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1 Crore in addition to the bank guarantee of Rs. 1.80 Crores, while the respondents argued that the petitioner had indeed given such an undertaking within a specified timeframe.
Validity of bank guarantee: The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 1 Crore, in addition to the existing bank guarantee of Rs. 1.80 Crores, to be submitted within two weeks. The total bank guarantee required was set at Rs. 2.8 Crores, to be maintained until the appeal's disposal by the Appellate Tribunal.
Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal: The Court emphasized that the Appellate Tribunal should address the grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, as the order issued by the second respondent was under challenge in the ongoing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal was instructed to hear and decide the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law within 12 weeks from the date of the Court's order.
Conclusion: The writ petition was granted in favor of the petitioner, with the directive for the additional bank guarantee and the Appellate Tribunal to proceed with the appeal's hearing and disposal. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.
-
2012 (8) TMI 979
Issues involved:
The refusal of Customs authorities to allow clearance of split cassia consignment due to non-conformity with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 standards.
Judgment Details:
The consignments of split cassia imported by the petitioners were refused clearance by Customs authorities citing non-conformity with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 standards. The consignments underwent testing thrice. The first report from Mitra S.K. Pvt. Ltd. highlighted excessive moisture and growth of mold. Subsequent testing at the Central Food Laboratory revealed a high coumarin content of 6285.6 ppm, whereas the prescribed standard dictates coumarin should be absent.
A writ petition was filed, leading to an order by Justice Soumitra Pal directing the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India to draw samples for analysis within 48 hours. The samples were to be sent to the Export Inspection Agency in Kolkata for final analysis within fifteen days, as earlier tests were deemed conclusive by the Judge.
Samples were sent to the Export Inspection Agency, Kolkata, where the report noted the absence of rodent hair, excreta, and mold growth in the tested sample. However, due to a lack of standard procedure for coumarin analysis, the report could not ascertain the coumarin content, indicating non-conformity with prescribed standards.
The respondent authorities cited regulations prohibiting the use of coumarin in any food article under The Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulations, 2011. Despite arguments on the natural occurrence and alleged harmlessness of coumarin, the Court upheld the regulations, leading to the dismissal of the writ application.
The writ application was dismissed, and an out-of-time filed affidavit in opposition was returned. The Court emphasized the prohibition on food items containing coumarin as per the regulations, thereby upholding the refusal of clearance for the split cassia consignment.
-
2012 (8) TMI 941
Smuggling - detention with a view to prevent him from indulging into the smuggling activities in future - seizure of red sanders - right of representation - Held that: - the detenu has no right to appear through a legal practitioner in the proceedings before the Advisory Board. It is, however, necessary to add an important caveat. The reason behind the provisions contained in Article 22(4) (b) of the Constitution slate is that a legal practitioner should not be permitted to appear before the Advisory Board for any party. The Constitution does not contemplate that the detaining authority or the Government should have the facility of appearing before the Advisory Board with the aid of a legal practitioner but that the said facility should be denied to the detenu. In any case, that is not what the Constitution says and it would be wholly inappropriate to read any such meaning into the provisions of Article 22. Permitting the detaining authority or the Government to appear before the Advisory Board with the aid of a legal practitioner or a legal adviser would be in breach of Article 14, if a similar facility is denied to the detenu. We must therefore make it clear that if the detaining authority or the Government takes the aid of a legal practitioner or a legal adviser before the Advisory Board, the detenu must be allowed the facility of appearing before the Board through a legal practitioner.
The embargo on the appearance of legal practitioner should not be extended so as to prevent the detenu from being aided or assisted by a friend who, in truth and substance, is not a legal practitioner. Every person whose interests are adversely affected as a result of the proceedings which have a serious import, is entitled to be heard in those proceedings and be assisted by a friend.
What is alleged is that the detenu has been detained on the basis of illegal grounds of detention. That plea, however, is devoid of merits. For, as the order of detention gives correct detention order number, as also even the opening part of the grounds of detention gives the same number coupled with the fact that the circumstances and material referred to in the grounds of detention and the documents accompanying thereto pertain to the present detenu and none else - there is no substance in the grievance that the subjective satisfaction is vitiated because of such variation in the grounds of detention or for that matter affecting the right of detenu to make effective representation, in any manner.
Is the detenu a habitual offender? - Held that: - the fact that the previous detention order passed in the year 2008 against the detenu having been quashed by the High Court, assuming that it cannot be taken into account, even then, it would not affect the subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority in its entirety. That can be extricated from consideration keeping in mind the provisions of section 5A of the Act. We would consider the alternative argument of the Advocate General raised across the Bar regarding the scope and application of section 5A of the Act a little later. Suffice it to observe that the grounds of detention, if read as a whole, in the fact situation of the present case, it is not possible to countenance the argument that the subjective satisfaction formed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated because of reference to past arrests in 2003 and 2004 and detention order in 2008.
The detenu, in the perception of the Detaining Authority, is, the kingpin of the organised syndicate; and indulges in smuggling of red sanders by using forged bottles, seals of various central excise offices and shipping lines used for sealing the export containers. The red sanders is an endangered species and is covered under the Convention of International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Export of red sanders is prohibited under the EXIM policy. The Detaining Authority was conscious of the fact that the detenu was arrested in connection with the latest seizure of huge quantity of red sanders as also unaccounted cash but was released on bail. In that case, the Detaining Authority was aware that the ordinary law of the land was insufficient to avert the criminal activities of the organised syndicate in future which was detrimental to the national interest.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2012 (8) TMI 917
Issues:
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 31887/2004 [2013 (292) E.L.T. 183 (Kar.)]
Summary:
Issue 1: Challenge to the order of withdrawal of benefit under Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme
The respondent, a partnership firm engaged in garment manufacturing, claimed duty-free benefit for exporting gents jackets prior to 1-4-1999 under Annexure-B. The benefit was initially granted but later withdrawn based on a general clarification issued on 1-4-1999. The respondent challenged the withdrawal through an appeal and subsequently a writ petition.
Judgment: The learned Single Judge found in favor of the respondent, stating that as per Annexure-B, the respondent was entitled to the benefit for exporting woollen jackets before 1-4-1999. The appellants had no grounds to withdraw the benefit based on the later clarification. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal as the respondent was rightfully granted the benefit as per the scheme and timeline of events.
Key Points:
- The respondent claimed duty-free benefit for exporting gents jackets under Annexure-B.
- The benefit was withdrawn based on a general clarification issued on 1-4-1999.
- The Single Judge ruled in favor of the respondent, considering the timeline of events and entitlement u/s Annexure-B.
- The High Court upheld the decision, stating the appellants were not justified in withdrawing the benefit.
Conclusion:
The appeal challenging the withdrawal of duty-free benefit under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme was dismissed by the High Court, affirming the respondent's entitlement as per Annexure-B and the timeline of events.
-
2012 (8) TMI 901
Penalty u/s 11AC - Whether the factual findings recorded by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, that the assesse has not made out a prima facie case or undue hardship to waive the pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, could be set aside by way of judicial review without demonstrating that such a finding was perverse - Supreme Court did not find any ground for interference with the impugned order and dimissed the petition filed by the assessee against the decision of High Court [2014 (2) TMI 357 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. However, Supreme Court granted extention of time for complying the CESTAT Order [2012 (11) TMI 598 - CESTAT, CHENNAI].
-
2012 (8) TMI 900
Recovery of fraudulently availed drawback of duty - applicants are claiming duty drawback (Drawback of Central Excise Portion) by providing wrong and incorrect information - Held that:- Applicants claimed drawback of Central Excise portion in respect of goods exported vide various Shipping Bills detailed in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal. The admissibility of such drawback to merchant exporters is determined as per C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 54/2001-Cus., dated 19-10-2001. - During investigation, the veracity of said declaration furnished by applicants for availing drawback at higher rate could not be verified. The applicants did not submit the relevant annexures containing the requisite certificate despite issuance of summons. They neither appeared before Customs nor submitted the requisite documents. Rather they asked the Customs to procure said documents from their CHA. The printout of the Shipping Bills were retrieved from the EDI data. The investigation carried out could not verify the veracity of said certificates. Therefore the drawback claim were rightly denied.
After investigation it has been conclusively proved that the applicant did not furnish details of supplier/manufacturer/job-worker and as such violated provisions of Circular No. 54/2001-Cus., dated 19-10-2001. Since, the violation is conclusively established, Government do not find any reason to consider applicant’s contention regarding cross-examination as the same will not yield any substantial benefit in favour of the applicant - Decided against assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 899
Confiscation of goods - Penalty u/s 112 - violation of provisions of Sections 77, 79 and 11 of Customs Act, 1962 read with provisions of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 - Held that:- Passenger is neither a habitual offender nor carrying the said goods for somebody else. He is the owner of the goods and concealment was not is an ingenious manner. There is a merit in the pleading of applicant that goods should be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and therefore said plea is acceptable.
As regards, the pleading to release the laptop unconditionally, Government finds that one laptop computer is allowed to be imported duty free by every passenger in terms of Notification No. 11/2004-Cus., dated 8-1-2004. So there is no case for its confiscation. Government therefore set aside the confiscation of said laptop computer and allows its duty free clearance. The confiscation of other mobiles/I-Phone is upheld. However, combined redemption fine in respect of mobiles/I-phone is modified to ₹ 6,000/. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 898
Duty drawback claim - imported raw leather was fully exempted from duty vide Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 - While rejecting the drawback claims, the original authority had held that in terms of Notification No. 26/2003-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2003, Notification No. 8/2005-Cus. (N.T.), dated 18-1-2005 and Notification No. 36/2005-Cus. (N.T.), dated 2-5-2005, the rates of drawback shall not be applicable to export of a commodity or product if such commodity or product is manufactured by availing of facility under DEPB Scheme as contained in para 4.3 and para 4.3.5 of Exim Policy 2002-07 and para 4.3 and para 4.3.5 of Exim Policy 2004-09 - Held that:- Circular No. 24/2001-Cus., dated 20-4-2001 and Circular No. 19/2005-Cus., dated 21-3-2005, clarify that All Industry Rate (AIR) of duty drawback are based on the concept of averages, where the drawback rates are based on average incidence of duties suffered on inputs and has no relationship to the actual input consumption matters or actual duty incidence suffered on inputs. Government finds that in this case these circulars are not relevant since the ground for rejection of drawback claim is as explained in para 8 above. However, Government finds no merit in contention of department that since, the applicant has not suffered any duties on their inputs, they are not eligible for Drawback claim. Here, Government is in agreement with the observation of Commissioner (Appeals) in this specific issue that AIR of Drawback cannot be denied/reduced by field formation as the same is fixed by Central Government taking into account all the relevant factors as stated in above said circulars.
Circular No. 3/99-Cus., dated 3-2-1999 where in it has been clarified that drawback is admissible only against cash payment of duties and debit of duties against DEPB scrip on import of goods is in effect availment of exemption of duty and therefore no drawback is admissible when duty is paid on inputs by debit of DEPB Scrip. Department has also contested that Circular No. 41/2005-Cus., dated 28-10-2005 provides that additional customs duty paid through debit under DEPB shall also be allowed as brand rate of drawback and no clarification has been given in respect of AIR. Since, the respondents are claiming drawback of duty at AIR this circular is not applicable to this case. - Drawback benefit is not permissible in this case since export goods have been manufactured by availing facility of DEPB Scheme. Since the applicant is not entitled for drawback claim there is not question of allowing instant interest claim. Therefore, Government sets aside both the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, dated 5-12-2008 and 21-3-2006 - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2012 (8) TMI 894
Denial of request of fixation of Brand Rate of Drawback - applicant had made the relevant exports by classifying the goods under category “A” of relevant entry Drawback schedule of All Industry Rate - Held that:- it is noted that the applicant exporters had indeed filed their drawback claims under relevant All Industry Rate Drawback schedule entry of category ‘A’ which on verification found was inadmissible because of Cenvat Credit facilities as discussed above. Now, the applicant by terming the same as an inadvertent error and wants to change the same into a claim of fixation of Brand Rate of Basic Customs Duty. It is now noted that the lower authorities have objected to it in absence of any authorized legal amendment to the filed EDI system AIR-DBK Shipping Bills. Government also notes that neither the above amendment nor any specific relaxation thereof under Rule 17 of the above DBK Rules, 1995 is on record before this authority. Rather for such subject matters for fixation of Brand Rate under Rule 7(1) of the Drawback Rules, 1995 after exporter avails All Industry Rate Drawback under Rule 3 by virtue of his declaration on the shipping bill to avail AIR of drawback.
When provisions are stipulated for doing a particular act in a specific manner then it would mean that any deviation therefrom is not permitted at all and it should be performed in that manner itself as per Rules. - sufficient cause of action stands completed on the basis of all the submitted documents by the applicant, thus the same nowhere contravenes the principles of natural justice. The applicant has been heard by Commissioner (Appeals) and the submission made by him are duly considered. So there is no merits in his pleadings. Government finds itself in conformity with the views of Commissioner (Appeals) herein as there is no legal infirmity in the said order. - Decision in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi [2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] relied upon - Decided against assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 793
Advance licence - job work - assessee has transferred the imported billets to MSRM thereby violating the condition (vii) of Notification No.51 of 2000 dated 27th April 2000 - Held that:- The argument of the Revenue is unacceptable as construing similar provisions contained in customs notification No.32 of 2005 dated 8th April 2005 issued under the Target Plus Scheme, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade has issued a public notice on 15th February 2008 stating therein that the beneficiary status holder whether a manufacturer exporter or merchant exporter can get the imported goods converted through a jobworker, thus prima facie it appears that sending the billets to a jobworker for conversion into angles by the manufacturer/exporters cannot be construed as transfer of billets especially when there is no bar for the manufacturer – exporter to get the raw materials imported under the advance licences get converted through a jobworker - the assessee has sold the goods after its conversion and not before its conversion.
As DGFT has in the past admittedly granted advance licenses to assessee as a manufacturer exporter with the assessee as a supporting manufacturer for duty free imports under notification No.51 of 2000 dated 27th April 2000. Therefore, when according to the licensing authorities a manufacturer exporter can get the raw materials converted through a jobworker / supporting manufacturer, it would not be open to the Revenue to contend that the manufacturer / exporter cannot take assistance of a supporting manufacturer - it is a fit case for entertaining the appeal without any predeposit - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 761
Digital Multifunction Print and Copying machines - assessee pleaded for release as not of restricted category - Held that:- In respect of cases relating to which the authorised chartered engineers had not inspected the goods in question, the customs authorities concerned shall direct the inspection of such goods before they are released. Such goods may be directed to be released, on payment of the appropriate customs duty and on the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed by law - the assessee may plead for for the waiver of the detention and demurrage charges, if any - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 760
Order of suspension of the appellant's CHA license - Held that:- A close reading of the provisions of Regulation 20 (2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 ('CHALR') disclose that the power to direct immediate action is confined to taking it within 15 days from the date of receipt of a report from the investigating authority whereas in this case the report of the investigating agency was received on 09.03.2011 concededly the Commissioner did not seek recourse to the power under Regulation 20 (2). The immediacy or urgency of the situation was allowed to lapse and eventually the Commissioner issued the suspension order on 10.10.2011.
The net result is that where immediate suspension is called for, the Commissioner has to take swift action and cannot wait and if he does so suspension can be made only after the full inquiry is held as provided by Regulation 22. In this case the final report of the inquiry was made on 07.05.2012 and the appellant was issued with a show-cause notice on 05.06.2012 - the suspension order impugned in this case cannot be sustained and the authorities are, however, at liberty to proceed with the inquiry and pass any order in accordance with law - in favour of assessee by way of remand.
-
2012 (8) TMI 748
EPCG licence - imported of machine - item was assessed to duty under Customs Tariff Heading No. 9030.89 applying the duty rate of 20% + 5% + 13%CVD + 4%SAD - appellant requested for reassessment of the Bill of Entry on the ground that they have an EPCG licence for the same and requested for assessment @ 10% + 5%, which was rejected - refund claim was also rejected on the ground that inasmuch as the request for reassessment was rejected, there is no merit in the refund claim – Held that:- Even if the assessment made under Bill of Entry is an appealable order, the same does not prevent the department from passing a speaking order to enable the petitioner to file an appeal - department should have passed a speaking order as to why the appellant’s claim for exemption under EPCG scheme was not admissible before they rejected the refund claim - matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority
............
|
9911796707
