TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Differential Duty on Paper Weight Exceeding Limit</h1> <h3>MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS (I) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., COCHIN</h3> MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS (I) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., COCHIN - 2013 (292) E.L.T. 524 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Challenge against differential duty demand on light-weight coated paper under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.2. Rejection of refund claim for CVD payment.3. Interpretation of the requirements under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus regarding light-weight coated paper.4. Comparison with a previous tribunal decision on similar issues.5. Analysis of Chapter Note 7 under Chapter 48 of the Customs Tariff Schedule.Issue 1:The appellant challenged a demand for differential duty on light-weight coated paper under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Chemical Examiner's report indicated an average GSM of 72, exceeding the prescribed limit of 70 g/m2. The appellant did not contest the test report earlier but requested a retest during the appeal process. However, as the appellant did not pray for a retest during the current appeal, the original findings were deemed binding. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not claim the concessional rate of duty for paper weighing 72 g/m2, thus upholding the demand for differential duty.Issue 2:The importer had filed a refund claim for the CVD amount paid, which was rejected as premature by the Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal against this rejection, stating that the assessment order had not been challenged before claiming a refund. The Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the refund claim, as the demand for differential duty was upheld, indicating that the refund claim also merited rejection.Issue 3:The Tribunal analyzed the requirements of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, which prescribed concessional rates for light-weight coated paper up to 70 g/m2 for printing magazines. The appellant's imported goods did not meet this criterion based on the Chemical Examiner's report showing an average GSM of 72. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with the parameters specified in the notification was crucial, and denial of the notification's benefit was justified, leading to the sustained demand for differential duty.Issue 4:The appellant cited a previous tribunal decision in Manipal Printers and Publishers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, where the benefit of a similar notification was allowed based on conflicting test reports and specific claims regarding the nature of the imported paper. However, in the current case, with only one test report indicating an average GSM of 72 and no specific claims made by the appellant, the Tribunal found the previous decision inapplicable and upheld the demand for differential duty.Issue 5:The appellant referred to Chapter Note 7 under Chapter 48 of the Customs Tariff Schedule to argue compliance with the requirements of the notification. However, the Tribunal noted that the Chapter Note was relevant for classification purposes only, while the critical factor for the notification was whether the imported goods met the specified parameters. As the goods did not satisfy the notification's criteria, the denial of the notification's benefit and the sustained demand for differential duty were deemed appropriate.
TaxTMI 