2005 (7) TMI 671 - HC - Customs

High Court Upholds Customs Duty Decision for Lack of End-Use Certificate

The High Court upheld the Department's decision to demand customs duty from the appellant for failing to produce an end-use certificate confirming the ... - Issues:1. Claim for concessional assessment of customs duty on imported goods for melting purposes.2. Failure to produce end-use certificate leading to demand of customs duty.3. Dismissal of appeals before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.4. Challenge of Departmental orders in a writ petition.Analysis:The appellant imported heavy melting scrap and sought a concessional assessment of customs duty by committing to use the goods for melting purposes in the induction furnace. The Department accepted the claim but required the appellant to produce a certificate from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirming the goods' utilization for manufacturing activity. Despite multiple reminders, the appellant failed to provide the certificate. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs conducted a regular assessment, demanding a sum of Rs. 7,09,995 based on the bond executed by the appellant. The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was dismissed due to the non-production of the end-use certificate. Subsequently, an appeal was made to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was rejected on grounds of a 210-day delay, with the application for condonation dismissed for lack of sufficient cause shown by the appellant.The writ petition challenging all Departmental orders was dismissed by the learned single Judge, leading to the present writ appeal. The High Court, comprising N.K. Sodhi, CJ and S. Abdul Nazeer, J., after hearing the appellant's counsel, found no error justifying intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court upheld the Departmental Officers' decisions, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide the end-use certificate as agreed. Consequently, the writ appeal was deemed meritless and dismissed, affirming the previous rulings against the appellant.