2024 (11) TMI 1148 - AT - Customs

Demand of anti-dumping duty - benefit of Notification No.21/2016- CUS (ADD) dated 31.05.2016 is not to be provided to the appellant - invocation of extended period of limitation u/s 28 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequent imposition of penalty under Section 114 A of the Act Invoking extended period for raising demand of ADD - HELD THAT - We find that though, the appellant have made out a very strong prima facie case on merit in their favour but in our considered view the appeal can be disposed of on the ground of limitation itself. We find that dispute relates bill of entry No.7216037 filed on 24.10.2016, bill of entry No.7250924 filed on 27.10.2016 whereas bill of entry No.8389062 was filed on 31.01.2017, however the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2021. We find that the dispute which was raised by the department is on the basis of the information available on import invoice, bill of lading which are vital documents for the purpose of processing the bill of entry and assessment thereof. In the bill of entry itself the name of OCI is mentioned. In the bill of lading name of Lu Xi is clearly mentioned. Therefore, for purpose of making the present case all the information were gathered only from those documents which were very much available at the time of filing of bill of entry. Therefore, there is absolutely no suppression of the fact on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the ingredients to invoke extended period in terms of Section 28 (4) are not available in the facts of the present case. For the bill of entry dated 24.10.2016, 27.10.2016 and 31.01.2017, the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2021 that is much after the normal period of limitation. Therefore, in our considered view the demand is clearly time barred.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is liable for the benefit under Notification No.21/2016-CUS (ADD) dated 31.05.2016, and whether the demand is time-barred.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order confirming the imposition of anti-dumping duty by the Commissioner of Customs. The issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit under Notification No.21/2016-CUS (ADD) dated 31.05.2016. The appellant claimed to be the importer, with M/s. Lu Xi Chemical (Hong Kong) as the exporter, seeking the benefit under Sr. No.4 of the notification. The appellant argued that the bill of lading clearly indicated Lu Xi Chemical (Hong Kong) as the shipper, supporting their claim. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their position. The appellant also contended that there was no suppression of facts, as all information was disclosed to the customs authority during the bill of entry filing. The appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, citing precedents to support their stance.

The revenue, represented by the Superintendent (AR), reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the imposition of anti-dumping duty.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the appeal could be disposed of on the ground of limitation. The dispute related to bill of entry filings in 2016 and 2017, with the show cause notice issued in 2021. The Tribunal noted that all relevant information, including the importer and exporter details, was available in the documents submitted during the bill of entry filing. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued much after the normal period of limitation. As a result, the demand was set aside on the ground of being time-barred, and the appeal was allowed.

The judgment was pronounced on 22.11.2024 by the Tribunal, comprising HON'BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) and HON'BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL). The appellant was represented by Shri Hardik Modh, while Shri Sanjay Kumar appeared for the revenue.