2015 (11) TMI 30 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Importer's Concessional Duty Rate Decision

CC, Chennai Versus M/s. MedreichSterilab Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent assessee. The judgment emphasized that the imported goods ... Refund of differential duty - Import of Chlorohydrate Aniodorone – Benefit claimed under notification No. 21/2003 – Revenue contends that as per customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996, Rule 3 regulation stipulates that manufacturer has to obtain a registration and has to file an application to obtain benefit and importer has misrepresented facts as they had already imported and cleared the material on payment of duty on merits – Assessee contends they claimed refund under Sl.No. 80B and are also covered under Sl.No. 80A, certificate of registration under 80C not required before importation – Held That:- Requirements under Rule 3 and Rule 4 are merely procedural and intent of these statute is to ensure that use of goods imported by manufacturer are for intended purpose - Goods imported by respondent were bulk drugs and same are covered under Sl.No. 80 B of Notification No. 21/2003-Cus. - Impugned order of lower appellate authority does not suffer from any irregularity and is upheld – Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Customs Notification No. 21/20032. Compliance with Customs rules regarding registration and application for imports3. Interpretation of procedural requirements under Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) granting the assessee the benefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2003. The importer claimed eligibility for a concessional rate of duty under Sl.No. 80(B) of the notification. The dispute arose from the importer's assertion that they were entitled to a lower duty rate after initially paying a higher duty amount. The Revenue contested this claim, alleging misrepresentation by the importer.Compliance with Customs Rules:The Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the assessee's refund claim, citing non-compliance with the Customs (Import of Goods on Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. The rules required registration and application before importation to avail of the benefits under the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, emphasizing that the procedural requirements were fulfilled subsequently and were technical in nature.Interpretation of Procedural Requirements:The Tribunal analyzed the procedural requirements under the Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996, specifically Rule 3 and Rule 4. These rules outlined the registration process and application for obtaining benefits. The Tribunal noted that the importer completed the registration and application after importation, stating that these actions were procedural and intended to ensure the goods' use for the declared purpose. The Tribunal highlighted that the statutory interpretation supported the importer's entitlement to the notification's benefits.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent assessee. The judgment emphasized that the imported goods fell under the relevant notification, and the procedural requirements were met, entitling the importer to the concessional rate of duty. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the grant of the refund to the assessee.