9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dertakings, have imported Indonesian Steaming (Non-Cooking) Coal in the month of the Dec. 2011 & Feb. 2012, from the same overseas seller/supplier. At the time of importation of the said goods, the importers had complied with all the necessary formalities, like submission of IGM, Bills of Entry etc. along with other relevant documents necessary for clearance of the Cargo for home consumption from the Customs area. It is also not in dispute that the Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, respectively, were finally assessed by the Customs authorities and handed over to the importers M/s.MMTC and M/s. STC for payment of duty; but both the importers have failed to discharge the duty and clear the goods. In the meantime, the authorities have initiated action under Section 48 of the Customs Act. Thereafter, the importers M/s MMTC & M/s STC had filed representations with the Customs authorities informing that they could not clear the goods because of logistic problem and requested for cancellation of the respective Bills of Entry and also expressed of having no objection for amending the IGMs in favour of the new consignee to whom the goods would be sold b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respective Bills of Entry nor cleared the cargo from the Customs area. Consequently, in July/ August 2012 notices were issued to both the importers initiating action under Section 48 of the Customs Act,1962 as they failed to clear the cargo from the port area. The said importers M/s MMTC M/s STC had submitted to the Commissioner of Customs(Import) Paradip Port vide letters dt. 10.08.2012 14.09.2012, respectively, informing that due to some logistic problem in transferring the imported cargo, the same could not be moved from the port area. Further, they have stated that neither customs duty was paid nor any amount was remitted to the foreign supplier, hence, the respective Bills of Entry be treated as withdrawn. It was also stated that they have no objection for cancellation of the respective Bills of Entry filed earlier for the imported goods and also change of their name mentioned in the IGM in favour of the new consignee, as importer of the said goods. 4. Thereafter, M/s.Bhatia Global Trading Ltd. had approached Commissioner of Customs(Import), Bhubaneswar on 30.10.2012 requesting for cancellation of the Bills of Entry and also amendment to the respective IGM filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellants, at the outset submitted that since the imported goods were neither cleared nor its consideration were remitted to the overseas seller/supplier by the previous importers, namely, M/s.MMTC and M/s.STC, the overseas supplier chose to sale the goods to other buyers in India as he continued to be the owner of the said goods. The Appellants had entered into an agreement with the overseas supplier in August/September, 2012 for purchase of the said imported consignment. Consequently, the previous importers namely M/s. MMTC and M/s. STC, who had not remitted any amount to the overseas supplier, agreed to issue no objection in favour of the new consignees/importers, and accordingly, all relevant imported documents were handed over and endorsed in favour of the Appellants. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that after getting possession of all the documents relating to import of the said goods, they have requested the Customs authorities for amendment to IGMs filed earlier, for incorporating the name of the Appellant as importer, in place of M/s MMTC or M/s STC, as the case may be, in the respective IGMs. The Appellant had also requested for cancellation of the Bills of Entry f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012 under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 against their request for cancellation of earlier Bills of Entry and for filing fresh Bills of Entry. The Ld.Advocate has categorical in making the statement that the Appellant would discharge all liabilities towards duties, interest etc., assessed against the said Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, and determined as would be payable on the date of clearance of the said goods from the custody of Customs, and submitted that to that extent their prayer for relief in the Appeal Memorandum filed before this Tribunal be treated as modified/amended, and the necessity for filing modification/application be dispensed with due to urgency of matter. 8. Shri A.K.Raha, Ld.Special Counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the Applicants request for amendment to IGMs and also cancellation of earlier Bills of Entry were rejected mainly on the ground of substantial loss of revenue to the exchequer. The Ld. Special Counsel has also fairly admitted that since the assessed Bills of Entry were not challenged either by the Department or by the earlier importers M/s.MMTC or M/s.ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said imported goods with the Overseas seller/supplier, had filed applications with the Customs authorities requesting amendment to the respective IGMs for incorporating their name as importer. Also, they have requested for cancellation of the earlier Bills of Entry filed and sought permission to file fresh Bills of Entry for clearance of the said cargo for home consumption and expressed their willingness to discharge duty, interest and other charges as per the assessed Bill of Entry, but on provisional basis reserving their right for final assessment of their duty liability on the basis of fresh Bills of Entry permitted to be filed by them. 11. We find that the authorities below rejected their request, mainly on the ground that the amendment to IGM would result in substantial loss of revenue and thus the intention of the Appellants were fraudulent. In other words, the rejection of the request of the Appellant was solely on the apprehension of the Revenue that consequent to the amendment to respective IGMs and after filing the fresh Bill of Entry, the Appellant would seek re-assessment of the imported goods, already finally assessed and would claim the benefit of reduction in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, in our view, it is not necessary to enter into other technical niceties of the case, as the above observations are made on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In the result, we set aside the impugned Order and remand the case to the adjudicating authority, with the following directions to give effect to our above observation. (i)The amendment to IGMs be allowed to the extent of replacing the name of the importers M/s MMTC or M/s STC, as the case may be, with that of the Appellant. (ii) Application for amendment to Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, respectively,if filed by the Appellants; only to the extent of substitution of the name of importers viz. M/s MMTC or M/s STC, as the case may be, with that of the Appellant, be considered. At this juncture, Shri Ramesh Nair, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that as the imported goods are live stock and the Appellants have to pay heavy demurrage charges, a time frame be fixed for disposal of the case to which the Ld. Spl Counsel for the Revenue has no objection. The Ld. Adv. sought four weeks time to file all papers with the Customs authorities. Consequently, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
