Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 763 - AT - CustomsDenial of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - whether the imported coal is coking coal or other than coking coal in the absence of retesting of sample - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in M/S SHREE ELECTROMELT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR 2018 (5) TMI 72 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD on going through the chemical test report at load port and the chemical test report of the department found that the parameters do not match and once there are contradictions on the test reports, hence remanded the matter to adjudicating authority for re-test of sample - In absence of availability of remnant sample, ld. Adjudicating authority decided the present matter on the basis of available evidences and old reports and held that original test report of the Chemical examiner concluded that the sample was other than coking coal, therefore the consignment of 16500 Mts. of imported coal is liable to be re-assessed as Coal other than coking coal . The Ld. Adjudicating authority nowhere given any finding on the vital facts, which are very important for deciding the issue that whether the imported coal is coking coal or other than coking coal in the absence of retesting of sample. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.
Issues:
Appeal against denial of benefit of Exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus on import of Coking Coal. Analysis: 1. Background and Denial of Benefit: The appellant filed an appeal against the OIO denying the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus on import of Coking Coal. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand without retesting the samples, leading to the present appeal. 2. Arguments by Appellant: The appellant's counsel argued that the adjudicating authority did not follow the remand direction for re-testing the samples, as directed by CESTAT. The reliance on a letter dated 13.12.2010 as retest was challenged, as it did not fulfill the requirements for retesting. The appellant cited relevant legal decisions to support their arguments. 3. Additional Submissions by Appellant: The appellant highlighted that the load port and discharge port certificates clearly stated the imported goods as coking coal, supported by transactions and documents. They argued that the CSN parameter was not provided in the exemption notification, and extraneous parameters should not be used to deny the exemption. 4. Further Contentions by Appellant: The appellant contended that coal with CSN could be considered coking coal, referencing a specific legal case. They also presented evidence regarding the vessel and the importer's actions to support their claim for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. 5. Response by Authorized Representative: The Authorized Representative supported the impugned order in response to the appellant's arguments. 6. Tribunal's Decision and Observations: After considering both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the test reports and the absence of the remnant sample for retesting. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was based on old reports, leading to the re-assessment of the imported coal as 'Coal other than coking coal.' 7. Remand and Reconsideration: The Tribunal observed vital facts submitted by the appellant that were not addressed by the Adjudicating Authority. Due to the importance of these facts in determining the nature of the imported coal, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to decide the issue afresh, allowing a personal hearing to the appellants within three months. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for a comprehensive reconsideration of the matter.
|