9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or, in terms of the said rules, deemed direct dispatch from Zanzibar - identity of the person chargeable to duty or interest lacking - HELD THAT:- From the facts and circumstances of documentation flow, as well as physical movement of the impugned goods, it is observed that it is the conclusion of the goods having, for a time, been out of customs control that is at the core of the dispute. There are no evidence on record that the procedures of customs control in the United Arab Emirates, and in particular at Jebel Ali, had been ascertained for determination that the warehousing during transit was in contravention of prescription in the impugned Rules. It would also appears to us that customs control of India has been sought to be emplaced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the legality of the impugned order - As the identity of the person chargeable to duty or interest is crucial to the fastening of duty liability and interest as well as penalty, the impugned order is in error. It would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority for fresh decision - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - HON BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And HON BLE MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri C M Sharma, Consultant, for the appellant Shri Ram Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER : C J MATHEW The issue in these appeals of M/s Prachi Exports Pvt Ltd and Shri Gopal Aggarwal, Director of M/s Prachi Exports Pvt Ltd, against order [order-in-appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Subsequently, empty container No. BAXU 2672178 was hired from shipping line BAY LINES and the present consignment was stuffed there in and sealed No. 330112 shipped vide vessel CMA CGA LA TOUR/CARELIA . The Noticee/Importer has not produced any co-relating documents to establish that the goods imported into in India vide above mentioned Bill of Entry are the same goods which were shipped from Zanzibar. Further it is admitted fact that the goods did not remain under the Customs Control in the Country of transit, thus crucial condition of Rule 7(iv) has been violated or to say in other words, not complied with. Therefore, I hold that the importation being in contravention of Rule 7 of Country of Origin, Rule 2008, benefit of Notification 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been violated. The first appellate authority, on challenge to this finding, held that 6. I find that in the present case, the importer has not produced any co-relating documents to establish that the goods imported into India vide above mentioned Bill of Entry are the same goods which were shipped from Zanzibar. CIU held that the importation being in contravention of Rule 7 of Country of Origin Rules, 2008; benefit of Notification No. 12/2012 (Sr. No, 32) is not available to subject Bill of Entry and rejected the benefit of concessional duty. The goods did not remain under Customs Control in the Country of transit thus condition of Rule 7(iv) has not been complied with. . 7. .. I observe that it is essential condition under Rule 4 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto India vide above mentioned Bill of Entry are the same goods which were shipped from Zanzibar. The goods did not remain under Customs Control in the Country of transit thus condition of Rule 7(iv) has not been complied with. Hence, there is no doubt that benefit of Notification No. 12/2012 (Sr. No. 32) is not available for goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 2685349 dated 11.07.2013. 2. It would appear that while the denial of benefit has been attributed to inability of the importer either to furnish documentation evincing direct dispatch from Zanzibar or, in terms of the said rules, deemed direct dispatch from Zanzibar, the particularized reason appears to be that the impugned goods allegedly did, for a period, remain out of customs c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962 which is contrary to the provisions of section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 intended to place person chargeable with duty or interest on notice and that the time-frame stipulated in section 28(9) of Customs Act, 1962 have not been complied with. The lower authorities have justified the apparent breach of section 28(9) of Customs Act, 1962 by drawing attention to the change of adjudicating authority as adequate explanation. We do not propose to dwell on this aspect at this stage. 5. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that the importer, M/s M/s Prachi Exports Pvt Ltd, had not been placed on notice, we do find that they were one of the notices even though no specific narration of their role has been recorded as preliminary for fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
