2018 (5) TMI 1987 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants reduced CVD rate on appeal, considering EDI system closure delay.

NATIONAL SYNTHETICS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN

The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and directed reassessment of the bill of entry with the benefit of the reduced countervailing duty (CVD) rate ... Rate of tax on imported goods - enhancement in the rate - relevant date of bill of entry - delay in the process of making good certain corrections, in the name of the supplier in the bills of entry - HELD THAT:- Since the appellant has filed the necessary declaration with EDI system on 6-7-2009 at 16:20 hrs, we are of the view that the date of filing of bill of entry as per Section 15(1) of the Customs Act is to be taken as 6-7-2009. Even though, it is a fact that actually the bill of entry was generated on 8-7-2009, the benefit of date of filing as on 6-7-2009 is required to be extended to the appellant since the delay in generation of bill of entry is on account of the fact that the EDI system was closed for updating the budget changes. The appeal is allowed with direction to the lower authorities to reassess the bill of entry with the benefit of reduction of CVD as applicable on 6-7-2009. Issues: Challenge to Order-in-Appeal regarding import of Spandex Yarn, Correct rate of CVD applicable at the time of filing bill of entry.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 10/2010 regarding the import of Spandex Yarn. The appellant filed the electronic declaration for the consignment on 6-7-2009, but due to a typographical error, corrections were delayed, and the bill of entry was generated on 8-7-2009 after necessary amendments. The appellant was asked to pay CVD at an enhanced rate due to budget changes.2. The appellant argued that the bill of entry should be deemed filed on 6-7-2009, and the rate applicable on that date should be extended. The Revenue contended that duty as per the date of bill of entry, i.e., 8-7-2009, should apply as per Section 15(1) of the Customs Act.3. The Tribunal noted that the declaration was filed on 6-7-2009, but the bill of entry was generated only on 8-7-2009 after corrections. Considering the EDI system closure for budget updates, the Tribunal held that the date of filing should be considered as 6-7-2009, granting the appellant the benefit of the earlier rate of duty.4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, directing reassessment of the bill of entry with the benefit of the reduced CVD rate applicable on 6-7-2009. The decision favored the appellant due to the delay in bill generation caused by the EDI system closure for budget updates.