9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to others. The interpretation to be made under SION is not subordinate to the sub-headings made under CTH 69.02 of the Customs Tariff Act 1989. Both Customs Tariff interpretation and SION interpretation cater to different situations, especially when the Tariff sub-headings are different under CTH 69.02 and HSN Explanatory Notes/SION norms. It has thus been correctly argued by the appellant that action if any under SION and DIFA/DFRC violations has to be taken by the appropriate authorities under DGFT and Customs can only bring to the notice of DGFT authorities of any ambiguity in the imports made by the appellant vis-`-vis authorizations issued by DGFT. Otherwise also, appellant would have been entitled to drawback on the export product if duty was paid on the refractory bricks at the time of imports. It is thus a case of revenue neutrality as it is a well established policy of the Central Government to have zero-rated exports. Accordingly, on merits it is held that benefit of exemption under Notification No.90/2004-Cus, dt.10.09.2004 and Notification No.40/2006-Cus, dt.02.05.2006 has been correctly availed by the appellant. Extended period of limitation - Revenue neutra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That during the period 2005-06 to 2009-10, main appellant imported Magensia Spinel Bricks by declaring the classification of the imported goods under CTH 6902 1010 as these imported Magensia Spinel Bricks are also a category of Magnesite Refractory Bricks . It was his case that DGFT has not initiated any action against the appellants alleging any misuse of DFIA/DFRC schemes. That appellant used two types of refractory bricks namely Magnetic Refractory and Alumina Bricks . That only Magnetic Refractory Bricks are imported under DFIA/DFRC schemes under Notification No.90/2004-Cus, dt.10.09.2004 (DFRC) and Notification No.40/2006-Cus, dt.02.05.2006 (DFIA) and the Refractory Bricks imported by them were correctly classified under CTH 6902 1010. That the present proceedings have been directed against the appellants on the grounds that goods imported are classifiable under CTH 6902 1090 and not eligible to benefit under the above exemption notifications. That the appellants are actual users and goods have been imported under DFIA/DFRC scheme only after discharge of export obligations. That DFIA/DFRC scheme permit import of all the inputs used in the manufacture of export goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entives at the time of export of goods. That DGFT has not cancelled their licences but have issued a clarification in favour of the assessee. That Customs Authorities could not have impinge upon the jurisdiction of DGFT and proceed to adjudicate the case against the appellants. That Customs can refer the matter to DGFT in case of any doubt but cannot challenge the validity of a licence. 3. Shri G.P. Thomas (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the classification of the imported goods has been correctly made by the adjudicating authority under CTH 6902 1090 as other bricks and demands/penalties have been correctly confirmed/imposed upon the appellants. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Certain imports of refractory bricks were made by the appellant in view of DFIA/DFRC schemes under SION heading A 1050 A 1030 and full exemption of Customs duty was claimed as per Notification No.90/2004-Cus, dt.10.09.2004 and Notification No.40/2006-Cus, dt.21.05.2006 when export obligations were already fulfilled. The refractory bricks were used only in the factory premises of the appellant under actual use condition. As per Para 30.11 of the OIO dt.30.03.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CaO or Cr2O3. This is normally done by determining the contents of the elements present (i.e. Mg, Ca or Cr) and from these amounts the equivalent concentrations in terms of their oxides can be calculated. For example, 40% Ca is equivalent to 56% CaO and 24% Mg is equivalent to 40% MgO. Thus, a product based on calcium silicate containing 40% Ca (equivalent to 56% CaO) would be classified in this subheading. As per the above international standards refractory bricks containing by weight, singly or together, more than 50% of Magnesium has to be considered as Magnesite Refractory Bricks. In the case of appellants, the content of MgO is more than 50% and will thus be a category of Magnesite Refractory Bricks. These categories of bricks have been allowed to be imported only for those who are using this quality of bricks as per SION A-1050. In the case of the appellant also the entire quantity imported has been used in the manufacture of goods for which export obligation has already been fulfilled. There is no evidence or argument on behalf of the Revenue that the Refractory bricks imported by the appellant have been diverted or sold to others. In the absence of any action taken b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
