9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember 2004 - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority appeared not have given credence to the revision accorded by Norms Committee; moreover, the adjudicating authority appeared to have misconstrued the purpose of section 12 of Customs Act, 1962, which has the sole reference to the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and scope for determining eligibility for exemption in a notification issued under section 25 of Customs Act, 1962 intended to operationalise a scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) with objectives of its own by visiting the declared classification intended for ascertaining rate of duty. Supplanting of the one by recourse to unconnected jurisdiction of the other deprives the impugned order of legal validity. Compoundin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd export of 'bolts and nuts made of "cold heading quality (CHQ)" steel' in fulfillment of obligation thereof. 2. In the bills of entry, the goods were declared as liable, but for the exemption afforded by said notification, to duties of customs at the rate corresponding to tariff item 7213 9120 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for 'cold heading quality' within 'BARS AND RODS, HOT-ROLLED, IN IRREGULARLY WOUND COILS, OF IRON OR NON-ALLOY STEEL' which is the description corresponding to heading 7213 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In the tariff enumeration of chapter 72, heading 7206 to 7217 are concerned with articles of 'non-alloy steel', heading 7218 to 7223 with articles of 'stainless steel' and heading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rod, grade SAE10B21' imported from Korea against bill of entry no. 903273/17.07.2009 and 1089.11 metric tons of 'prime steel CHQ wire rod hot rolled, grade SAE10B10A' from China against bill of entry no. 901933/08.07.2009 availing duty exemption of ₹ 58,11,461 and ₹ 52,14,824 respectively on declared values aggregating ₹ 5,92,04,642. The appellant claims that goods, stipulated to be produced using the imported material and to the extent of US $ 2,513,487 committed under the scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), were exported against 98 shipping bills between 30th July 2009 and 28th June 2010. Thereafter, on the basis of intelligence received and investigations carried out, the appellants were issued with show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectively and substitution with US$ 610 per metric ton under the authority of rule 4 and rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. It would appear that revaluation was erected on the contention that the 'transaction value' reflected in the invoices were for articles that did not conform to the goods and, therefore, sufficing for resort to rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, permitting adoption of value, as declared by the same importer for articles of 'alloy steel' in bills of entry filed between September 2009 and November 2009, in the alternative. The extended period of limitation was invoked by comparison of photocopies of 'mill test certificate', a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings for recovery of duties under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 but also intended for assessment of 'imported' goods under section 17, and section 18, of Customs Act, 1962 and to, impliedly, brook distinction among these several streams for collection of tax under the authority of law as to flex the sequence in the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 to suit recourse thereof is to strain the credibility of the valuation scheme. We are compelled to dwell on the implied distinction as the adjudicating authority appears to have fallen back on value of subsequent imports as benchmark which would surely not have been available for resort at the time of import of impugned goods which were to be subjected to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Drugs Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ludhiana [2018 (362) ELT 281 (Tri.-Chan.)], in Condor Footwear (I) Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad [2019 (367) 653 (Tri.-Ahmd)] and in Joy's The Beach Resort Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2020 (372) ELT 721 (Tri.-Chennai)] in support of her contention the fulfillment of export obligation erases scope for recovery of duties and imposition of penalties. Submissions on inappropriateness of revisiting valuation and invoking the extended period of limitation as well as on the impropriety of penalizing the other appellants were also made. 8. Learned Authorized Representative was pointedly concerned with the deliberate alteration of 'mill test certificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
