2017 (3) TMI 585 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.3.2012 - import of Gold Findings - denial on the ground that the appellants sold the same as such to the domestic traders and had not used them for intended purpose - Held that - The notification fixing 10% rate of duty did not provide for any condition to be fulfilled. The impugned order also records clearly that there is no actual user condition in the notification - The findings and the reasonings adopted by the Original Authority is clearly beyond the scope of provisions of the above said notification and as such, cannot be legally sustained. The Adjudicating Authority cannot add additional conditions in the statutory provisions when there is no conditions prescribed at all in the law. There is no bar on trading and neither there is a post-import condition for any specific type of use - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.12/2012-Cus regarding exemption for "Gold Findings" under Sl.No.323.
2. Alleged misuse of concessional rate of duty by importing companies.
3. Imposition of penalties on importing companies and Director.

Analysis:
1. The case involved four appeals challenging an order by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur, regarding the import of "Gold Findings" claiming exemption under Notification No.12/2012-Cus. The appellants imported the items and sold them to domestic traders, leading to a dispute with the Revenue. The Revenue alleged that the appellants did not use the imported items for their intended purpose of manufacturing jewelry, thus seeking to deny the concessional rate of duty. The Original Authority confirmed demands for customs duty and imposed penalties on the importing companies and the Director.

2. The appellants argued that they rightfully availed the concessional duty under the notification as there was no condition regarding the specific usage of the imported items. They contended that they used some items as jewelry components and sold the rest to traders, without violating any provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue, however, supported the findings of the impugned order.

3. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the imported items were indeed "Gold Findings" and were assessed as such for customs clearance. The notification did not specify any conditions for availing the concessional rate of duty, nor did it include an "actual user" condition. The Tribunal found that adding a specific condition post-import, as done by the Original Authority, was legally untenable. The Tribunal concluded that the Original Authority's findings were beyond the scope of the notification, and the appellants' selling of the items to traders did not constitute misuse. Therefore, the impugned order was deemed legally unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed, setting aside the order and penalties imposed.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessing officer cannot impose additional conditions not prescribed in the law, and there was no restriction on trading or a post-import condition for specific use. The Original Authority's observations on the quantity imported and its disposal were deemed irrelevant, as the notification did not contain such criteria. The Tribunal held that the Original Authority's reasoning was unfounded and not supported by statutory requirements, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and penalties imposed on the importing companies and the Director.