2016 (2) TMI 11 - AT - Customs

Tribunal affirms liability for special duty under Customs Tariff Act - Judgment on dispute settled.

M/s PNP Polytex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing both appeals and affirming the appellant's liability to pay the special additional duty in accordance ... Levy of additional Custom duty SAD @ 4% - goods of special importance - import of 'PVC Coated cloth of 68D/68D' under CTH 5903.10 - Held that:- additional duty of Excise is not chargeable and therefore appellant will not get shelter of subsection (5) of Section 3A from levy of SAD as provided under Section 3A. It is also to be noted that the intention of subsection (5) is that any one duty, either additional duty of Excise (GSI) or special additional duty shall be payable, for this reason subsection (5) was provided, according to which if the assessee is charged with additional duty of excise (GSI) then he shall be absolved from payment of SAD but for any reason if the additional duty of Excise (GSI) is not payable by the assessee then he shall be charged with special additional duty. With this intension in the present case since appellant's goods is not chargeable to additional duty (GSI) due to exemption Notification, SAD under Section 3A(1) is correctly and legally payable by the appellant. - Decided against the assessee. Issues:1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal rejecting appellant's appeals.2. Classification and assessment of imported goods under specific tariff headings.3. Applicability of additional excise duty and special additional duty on imported goods.4. Interpretation of Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1974.5. Exemption notifications and their impact on the chargeability of duties.6. Comparison of legal precedents cited by both parties.Analysis:1. The appeals were directed against the rejection of appellant's appeals by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellant contested the assessment of imported goods under different tariff headings and the subsequent imposition of duties. The main contention was the incorrect payment of duty due to the non-levy of additional customs duty equivalent to additional excise duty on the goods.2. The first appeal (C/1090/04) involved the import of goods falling under CTH 5603.9200, where the Special Additional Duty (SAD) was deemed payable. The appellant's counsel acknowledged this fact, leading to the dismissal of this appeal. In the second appeal (C/1089/04), concerning PVC Coated cloth classified under CTH 5903.10, the appellant argued that SAD was not payable due to the levy of additional duty of excise (Goods of Special Importance) under the Act of 1957.3. The appellant's counsel relied on legal judgments to support the argument that even if goods were exempted from additional excise duty, they remained chargeable under the Act. However, the Revenue's representative contended that the exemption notification rendered the additional excise duty not chargeable, thus making the appellant liable for SAD under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1974.4. The Tribunal analyzed Section 3A, emphasizing that the exemption notification exempted the additional duty (GSI) on the imported goods. The provision of subsection (5) of Section 3A was examined, clarifying that the term 'chargeable' indicated the actual imposition of duty, which was not the case due to the exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was liable to pay SAD as the additional duty of excise was not chargeable on the goods.5. The Tribunal differentiated the legal precedents cited by both parties, highlighting that the issues and facts in those cases were distinct from the present matter. The judgments did not align with the circumstances of the case at hand, emphasizing the correct application of the law based on the specific exemption notifications and chargeability of duties.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing both appeals and affirming the appellant's liability to pay the special additional duty in accordance with subsection (1) of Section 3A. The judgment was pronounced on 16.10.2015, settling the dispute regarding the classification and duty payment on the imported goods.