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>Customs Appellate Tribunal Upholds Duty Order, Denies DEEC Amendments</h1> <h3>M/s. BGH Exim Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, Kandla</h3> The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by M/s. BGH Exim Limited, upholding the order-in-original for customs duty and interest on imported goods. The ... Clearance of goods under DEEC Scheme - import of Fourspar powder - goods warehoused and on expiry of wrehousing period, the goods were instructed to be cleared - denial of DEEC scheme - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of the case of M/s. KLJ Plastics Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [1999 (11) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MADRAS] where it was held that the DEEC scheme does not disentitle them from its benefit merely because bond period has expired. The DEEC scheme and the provisions relating to storage of goods under Customs Bond are originating from two different statutes and are independent of each other. The DEEC scheme cannot be used to override the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, with respect to expiry of bond period. Though an advance licence issued after bonding of goods could be used to de-bond them, as per para 7.17 of the Hand Book ibid, the EXIM policy nowhere says that this could be done even after the Bonding period has expired. Therefore, that situation is to be dealt with only under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Denial of DEEC scheme not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:1. Appeal against order-in-original regarding customs duty and interest.2. Amendment in Bills of Entry for clearance under DEEC scheme.3. Denial of permission to clear goods under DEEC scheme.4. Applicability of DEEC scheme after expiry of warehousing period.Analysis:1. The case involved appeals filed by M/s. BGH Exim Limited against an order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner regarding customs duty and interest on imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of all appeals, upholding the clearance of goods on payment of duty based on previous legal precedents.2. The issue of amending Bills of Entry for clearance under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEEC) scheme was raised by M/s. BGH Exim Limited. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. KLJ Plastics Limited, which established that clearance under the DEEC scheme is not permissible after the expiry of the warehousing period.3. Another aspect of the case involved M/s. Gujarat Fluro Chemical Limited seeking permission to clear goods under the DEEC scheme, which was denied by the Assistant Commissioner and subsequently upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on legal precedents.4. The Tribunal analyzed the case records and legal arguments presented by both sides. It noted that M/s. BGH Exim Limited failed to clear the goods within the warehousing period but later sought to clear them by paying customs duty and interest. The Tribunal referenced the decision in the case of M/s. KLJ Plastics Limited to establish that the DEEC scheme cannot override the provisions of the Customs Act, especially after the expiry of the warehousing period. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the impugned order.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals, emphasizing the application of legal precedents and the inapplicability of the DEEC scheme after the expiry of the warehousing period. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the case facts and relevant legal principles, ensuring compliance with customs regulations and established judicial interpretations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
