2013 (8) TMI 209 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules Commissioner can adjudicate Advance Bill of Entry, clarifying legal framework.

M/s LIBRA NATURAL RESOURCES (P) LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI

The Tribunal upheld the appellant's appeal, ruling that the learned Commissioner was empowered to adjudicate the Advance Bill of Entry as requested by the ... Adjudication of Advance Bill of Entry - Assesse filed Advance Bill for import of a new vehicle – Revenue was of the view that after examination of the goods no adjudication can be done on advance bill of entry only duty can be paid on it – Held that:- Commissioner was empowered to adjudicate the Advance Bill of Entry - The importers desirous of a veiling the above facility should submit application along with the advance Bill of Entries to the Import Department – Commissioner can assess the Advance Bill of Entry as prayed by the assesse in accordance with law - following the judgement of MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOCHI [1999 (12) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Alongwith Advance Bill of Entry the importer/ CHA will produce copy of Bill of lading/ AWB and invoice issued by the supplier and other documents required for assessment – Decided in favor of assesse. Issues:Adjudication of Advance Bill of Entry without physical examination of goods.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the adjudication of an Advance Bill of Entry for the import of a new vehicle from Dubai. The appellant sought adjudication without the physical examination of goods based on the non-availability of a Type Approval Certificate, as required by ITC/Policy Conditions. The learned Commissioner had refused adjudication, citing a letter from 1955, which was deemed irrelevant due to the enactment of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the Customs Act permits filing of Bill of Entry before the filing of IGM and relied on Circular 22/97-Cus for Advance Bill of Entry procedures. The appellant contended that adjudication could proceed despite self-reporting of non-compliance with conditions, as fresh proceedings could address any violations post-adjudication.The appellant argued that the impugned order was erroneous as it failed to consider the provisions of the Customs Act, Circular 22/97-Cus, and the possibility of re-adjudication post-initial adjudication. The appellant emphasized that the impugned order wrongly relied on an outdated letter and did not account for the relevant legal framework governing Advance Bill of Entry procedures. The appellant also highlighted the need for a proper adjudication process to address any violations or non-compliance with ITC/Policy Conditions, as per established legal principles.The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions, including Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Circular 22/97-Cus, which outlined the procedure for Advance Bill of Entry processing. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had followed the required procedure by submitting the Advance Bill of Entry and undertaking to comply with the specified conditions. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Mohan Meakin Ltd., the Tribunal held that the learned Commissioner had the authority to adjudicate the Advance Bill of Entry in accordance with the law. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's contentions regarding specific penalties or condonations, stating that such considerations were within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority during the actual adjudication process.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's appeal, ruling that the learned Commissioner was empowered to adjudicate the Advance Bill of Entry as requested by the appellant. The decision clarified the legal framework governing Advance Bill of Entry procedures and emphasized the importance of proper adjudication in addressing import-related violations or non-compliance issues.