2000 (3) TMI 980 - AT - Customs

Successful appeal on duty-free clearance & Modvat credit compliance due to lack of evidence; emphasizes importance of compliance.

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants in a case concerning duty-free clearance under notification 203/92 and alleged availing of Modvat credit ... Export - Availment of Modvat credit in contravention of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. - Show cause notice - Receipt - Limitation Issues:1. Claim for clearance free of duty under notification 203/92.2. Allegation of availing Modvat credit contrary to notification condition.3. Non-receipt of show cause notices or hearing intimation.4. Requirement for importer to demonstrate compliance with notification conditions.5. Lack of evidence for confirming duty demand.6. Customs officers' responsibility to demand compliance evidence before clearance.Analysis:1. The appellants imported goods and claimed duty-free clearance under notification 203/92. Subsequently, they were alleged to have availed Modvat credit contrary to the notification condition. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand as there was no reply to the notice and no appearance during the hearing.2. The appellants contended that they did not receive show cause notices or hearing intimation. The Tribunal noted the absence of an affidavit affirming non-receipt and highlighted the importer's responsibility to demonstrate compliance with notification conditions, especially regarding Modvat credit availed during importation.3. The Tribunal emphasized that if the department extended notification benefits based on the importer's declaration, it was the department's duty to prove any non-compliance. In this case, the Commissioner failed to provide a basis for confirming the duty demand, as no evidence was presented to show that Modvat credit was availed of, and no specific reasons were given for the alleged mis-declaration or suppression.4. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument regarding the Custom House's organizational structure affecting import-export procedures. It stated that Customs officers should have demanded compliance evidence before allowing clearance to safeguard the department's interests. Since this was not done, the Commissioner's order confirming the duty demand was not justified.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to uphold the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned orders. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing evidence and complying with notification conditions before confirming duty demands, emphasizing the Customs officers' responsibility in ensuring compliance before clearance.