Imported goods under duty exemption challenged due to misdeclaration, overturned on limitation grounds

The Appellants imported goods under a duty exemption against a transferable DFRC license. Allegations of misdeclaration were made, leading to confiscation of goods, fines, and penalties. The Appellants contested the duty demand, arguing no intent to evade payment. Upon review, it was found that the goods matched the license parameters, and misdeclaration charges were deemed unsustainable. The demand of duty was considered barred by limitation, resulting in the setting aside of penalties and demand. The Commissioner's decision was overturned on limitation grounds, and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues involved: Duty exemption against transferable DFRC license, misdeclaration of goods, demand of duty on merit and limitation.

Duty exemption against transferable DFRC license: The Appellants imported "glazing glass" under Heading No. 7020 of the Customs Tariff Act and availed duty exemption against transferable DFRC license meant for use in the manufacture/processing of leather. Allegations were made that the Appellants imported float glass instead of glazing glass to avail exemption benefits. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine, confirmed a demand, and imposed penalties on the Appellants.

Misdeclaration of goods and demand of duty on merit and limitation: The ld. Advocate for the Appellants contested the demand of duty on merit and limitation. It was argued that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty as the goods were declared correctly in the Bills of Entry. The Customs Officers found Green Reflective Float Glass instead of Pyrolitic Blue Float Glass as declared. The contention was that the demand of duty was barred by limitation due to no intent to misdeclare the goods. The ld. DR argued that misdeclaration occurred, justifying the demand.

Judgment: On review, it was found that the goods matched the parameters of the DFRC license and were examined by Customs Officers in line with the license description. The charge of misdeclaration was deemed unsustainable as the goods were found to be as per the DFRC license. The Commissioner's observation of misdeclaration was not upheld upon examination of the Bill of Entry and other documents. Consequently, the demand of duty was considered barred by limitation, leading to the setting aside of the demand and penalties. The impugned orders were overturned on limitation grounds without delving into the merits, and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---