2013 (7) TMI 609 - HC - Customs

Imposition of interest Settlement Commission directed to pay interest under Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (1996 Rules, for short) - assessee contended that no interest can be levied for violation of post importation condition and the liability to duty has no relation to Section 28AB - Held that - The duty which was actually leviable but for the exemption along with interest at the rate fixed by notification issued u/s 28AB Pre-conditions or the conditions mentioned in Section 28AB do not get incorporated in Rule 8 - Rule 8 applies by its own force and on its own strength. Reference to Section 28AB in Rule 8 is only for the purpose of rate of interest. The rate of interest payable under Rule 8 was/is the rate of interest fixed by the notification issued under Section 28AB. It is to or for this limited extent, reference is made to the notification issued under Section 28AB - Rule 8 does not incorporate Section 28AB - Rule 8 also does not make the pre-conditions mentioned in Section 28AB part and parcel of the said Rule - Levy of interest for short levy of duty is prescribed by Rule 8 itself - Interest is chargeable because of the provisions of Rule 8 and not because of Section 28AB petition decided against assessee

Issues:
1. Liability to pay interest under Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996.
2. Interpretation of Rule 8 and its applicability in the case.
3. Invocation of Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 1: Liability to pay interest under Rule 8 of the Customs Rules:
The petitioner challenged the orders of the Settlement Commission directing payment of interest under Rule 8 of the Customs Rules. The contention was that interest for violation of post-importation conditions is not related to Section 28AB of the Customs Act but arises solely under Section 125 of the Act. The petitioner argued that interest could only be charged if the statute specifically authorizes it. The court examined Rule 8, which mandates recovery of duty if imported goods are not used for the intended purpose, along with interest at the rate fixed by a notification under Section 28AB. The court concluded that interest was chargeable under Rule 8 itself, not Section 28AB, and upheld the liability to pay interest based on the rule's provisions.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 8 and its applicability:
Rule 8 of the Customs Rules specifies the recovery of duty when imported goods are not used as intended, along with interest at the rate fixed by a notification under Section 28AB. The court clarified that Rule 8 does not incorporate Section 28AB's pre-conditions and applies independently for levying interest. The court emphasized that the reference to Section 28AB in Rule 8 is solely for determining the rate of interest. Therefore, the petitioner was held liable to pay interest under Rule 8 at the rate specified in the notification issued under Section 28AB, dismissing any challenge to the validity or interpretation of Rule 8.

Issue 3: Invocation of Section 28AB of the Customs Act:
The court noted that Section 28AB of the Customs Act was not invoked in the case, and the respondents relied on Rule 8 for levying interest. It was clarified that Rule 8 operates on its own strength and does not require the conditions of Section 28AB to be met. The court emphasized that interest was chargeable under Rule 8 itself, based on the provisions of the rule and the rate specified in the notification issued under Section 28AB. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments and ruling in favor of upholding the liability to pay interest under Rule 8.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the court's interpretation of Rule 8, its application in the case, and the basis for upholding the liability to pay interest under the Customs Rules.

← Previous Next →