9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure in terms of Circular No. 60/1999 and also to follow the procedure in terms of Circular No.19/2006-Cus. The appellant have followed the procedure prescribed in Circular No.19/2007 wherein it is clarified that the self-warehousing / bonding procedure need not be followed if any discrepancy is found at the time of examination of the imported goods. Further, I find that once the appellant lodged the complaint to the police and the impugned goods were seized and was auctioned by the order of the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 26.8.2017 and also the sale proceeds of ₹ 10,000/- were deposited in the court. Since the goods have already been auctioned by the order of the Court, it was not possible for the appellant to comply the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valued at USD 174375 without payment of Customs Duty to the importer s Bonded Warehouse cum manufacturing facility as per Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.3.2003 read with conditions stipulated in the B-17 Bond. The appellant filed warehouse Bill of Entry No.4262263 dated 4.1.2014 and the imported goods were cleared without payment of Customs duty. The assessable value of the goods so cleared was ₹ 1,09,81,004/- and the duty foregone was ₹ 34,27,004/-. As per the conditions of the Bond executed by the appellant, a re-warehousing certificate as proof of receipt of goods in the bonded premises is to be produced within three months from the date of clearance of goods from the port and necessary bond registers have to be main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced order for Fully Refined Paraffin Wax but has been supplied Magnesium Sulphate in powdered form (paraffin white powder), which are defective goods and is unfit for use by the appellants in the manufacture of wax candles. She further submitted that there cannot be any demand of duty on the paraffin white powder as the same has not even been imported in terms of the Procurement Certificate. She also submitted that the imported goods are unfit for use and therefore, the appellants have relinquished the title to the goods which is clearly evident from their letter dated 13.1.2014 and 17.1.2014 wherein the appellants have intimated the department that due to anomaly in the goods, they have discarded / disowned the imported goods. In reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods but has directed the appellant vide their letter dated 30.1.2014 to follow the procedure in terms of Circular No.60/1999. Therefore, the appellant has followed the procedure prescribed in the Circular No.60/1999. Therefore, the appellant has followed the procedure prescribed in the Circular No.19/2007-Cus. and Circular No.7/2006. She also submitted that in any case re-warehousing of the goods is not permitted if any discrepancy is found at the time of examination of the imported goods. For this submission, she relied upon the CBEC Circular No.19/2007-Cus. dated 3.5.2007 wherein it was clarified that the self-warehousing /bonding procedure need not be followed if any discrepancy is found at the time of examination of the imported goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs vs. Maini Granites Ltd.: 2005 (187) ELT 55 (Tri.-Bang.) Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (361) ELT 742 (Tri.-Mum.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant have not complied with the various Circulars issued by the CBEC. He further submitted that the Circular No.19/2007-Cus. stipulates that in case of discrepancy in the goods the EOU is not allowed to self-warehouse the goods and has to follow the procedure prescribed under Circular No.7/2006-Cus. Further, the appellants have failed to furnish re-warehousing certificate and the goods have not been warehoused at all and therefore, it has to be tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized and was auctioned by the order of the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 26.8.2017 and also the sale proceeds of ₹ 10,000/- were deposited in the court. Since the goods have already been auctioned by the order of the Court, it was not possible for the appellant to comply the conditions of re-warehousing certificate and further, it was not possible for the appellant to submit re-warehousing certificate as the goods imported was not Fully Refined Paraffin Wax . In fact, the appellant has been cheated / duped by the supplier and the appellant immediately inform the Department regarding the conditions of the impugned goods and followed the procedure as per the guidance given by the Department. Further, once the appellant has abandoned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
