2016 (3) TMI 659 - HC - Customs

Validity of Tribunal s order - Applicability of extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 28(1) - Demand of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 on goods imported for the period May 2008 to July 2009 - Import of cold rolled coils of iron and steel (CR Coil) on a regular basis for manufacture of motor vehicles - Correct description of the goods was not declared and hence the act of misdeclaration and suppression - Held that - as the Tribunal has not examined the issue of time-bar or extended period of limitation completely, the Tribunal s order is set aside only to this limited extent. - Matter remanded back

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of extended period of limitation under Section 28(1) for demanding duty on imports.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation of goods under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The judgment discusses the application of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, for demanding duty on imports made during a specific period. The appellant imported cold rolled coils of iron and steel for manufacturing motor vehicles. The issue of classification of the imported material was resolved in favor of the Revenue by a Tribunal order. However, the appellant contested the invocation of the extended period of limitation by the Revenue under Section 28, arguing that there was a difference of opinion among Tribunal members, indicating an arguable case and negating willful misstatement or suppression of facts.

2. The judgment further delves into the imposition of a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order lacked reasoning and consideration of materials on record. The appellant's counsel emphasized that the only issue raised was the plea of time bar. On the contrary, the respondent argued that the issue of limitation involved a mix of fact and law, and the Tribunal's decision should not be interfered with unless there is a legal error or perversity.

3. The judgment scrutinizes the aspect of confiscation of goods under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the appellant's declaration regarding the imported goods to be a misdeclaration and suppression, leading to duty evasion. However, the High Court observed a lack of clarity in the Tribunal's assessment of whether the goods were correctly declared or misdeclared. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order for further examination on the issue of time-bar and extended period of limitation, directing the Tribunal to reevaluate the duty recovery and related matters comprehensively.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the appeal, reviving it for the limited purpose of reexamining the time-bar issue and directing the Tribunal to expedite the proceedings. The judgment highlights the need for a thorough assessment of factual and legal aspects in customs cases to ensure fair adjudication and proper application of statutory provisions.