2017 (3) TMI 341 - HC - Customs

Court affirms assessee's exemption from customs duty on Bakery Shortening import under specific legal provisions

The High Court upheld the tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee regarding the liability of customs duty on the import of Bakery Shortening. The ... Import of Bakery Shortening from Sri Lanka - import prior to withdrawal of exemption - Held that: - under a notification dated 24.7.2006 and 11.9.2006 under which relief would be given to the parties who were issued the letter of credit prior to 2.6.2006 even other than NAFED the department itself allowed relief to the parties who have made import by way of making bill of lading before 2.6.2006 - it is reflected that much before 2.6.2006, the goods have been imported under letter of credit prior to the aforesaid date and thus the tribunal had rightly allowed the relief to the assessee - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Tariff Act, 1975 regarding liability of customs duty on the import of Bakery Shortening.2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 26/2000-CUS despite goods not being imported by NAFED.3. Applicability of DGFT Notification No. 22 (RE-2006/2004-2009) on imports under a specific bill of entry.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal was filed under Section 130 A of the Custom Act, 1962 against a tribunal's order dated 5.7.2012. The key question was whether the import of Bakery Shortening from Sri Lanka under a specific bill of entry was liable to customs duty. The tribunal's decision granting relief to the assessee was challenged by the department, arguing that the tribunal did not consider the case on merits. However, upon review, the High Court found that relief was allowed under notifications predating the import date, and the goods had been imported under a letter of credit issued before the relevant date. Therefore, the High Court upheld the tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee.Issue 2:The second issue revolved around the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 26/2000-CUS despite the goods not being imported by NAFED. The court's analysis focused on the timeline of import and the issuance of the letter of credit, determining that relief was rightly granted to the assessee based on the provisions of the notifications predating the import date. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee against the department's appeal.Issue 3:The final issue concerned the applicability of DGFT Notification No. 22 (RE-2006/2004-2009) on imports under a specific bill of entry. The court's examination of the facts revealed that the goods had been imported under a letter of credit issued before the relevant date mentioned in the notification. As a result, the court concluded that the relief granted to the assessee by the tribunal was justified. The questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of customs duty liability, exemption eligibility, and notification applicability in the context of the import of Bakery Shortening, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee based on the specific circumstances and legal provisions involved in the case.