2018 (3) TMI 292 - HC - Customs

Court Upholds Anti Dumping Duty Jurisdiction, Dismisses Writ Petition

The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Seizure Memo dated 04.10.2017, affirming the levy of Anti Dumping Duty on goods imported by the petitioner as per ... Imposition of ADD - relevant date - warehoused goods - Hot Rolled Painted Steel Plates - the 4th respondent detained the goods to interpret the Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 11.05.2017 claiming that the Anti Dumping Duty on the subject goods will have to be paid by taking the date of filing of the Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31.08.2017 without considering the Warehouse Bill of Entry dated 22.01.2016, which is much prior to the coming into force of the levy of even the provisional Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 08.08.2016 - Held that: - the goods declared as Hot Rolled Painted Steel Plates imported, vide Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31.08.2017, by the petitioner, were attempted to be cleared by evading payment of Anti Dumping Duty, was intercepted by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), Customs House, Chennai. The petitioner has self-assessed the goods under the Customs Tariff Item 7225 40 19 and paid the applicable Duty, except Anti Dumping Duty. The petitioner had originally filed the Warehouse Bill of Entry dated 22.01.2016 for clearance of 55.07.403 MTs of Steel Plates and Warehoused goods. Subsequently, they filed the subject Ex-Bond Bill of Entry for clearance of 878.395 MTs of Warehoused goods. It is settled position that the date of filing of Bill of Entry for home consumption is the relevant date for levy of Duty, including Anti Dumping Duty. As per Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, in the case of goods cleared from a Warehouse under Section 68, the rate of Duty and Tariff valuation, if any applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which a Bill of Entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that Section - Admittedly, the goods covered under the impugned Seizure Memo were not cleared out of Customs. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Anti Dumping Duty cannot be levied retrospectively, cannot be accepted for the reason that the date of filing of Bill of Entry for home consumption is the relevant date for levy of Duty, including Anti Dumping Duty. The levy of Anti Dumping Duty under the Notification dated 11.05.2017 is applicable to the goods cleared under the Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31.08.2017. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Seizure Memo dated 04.10.20172. Interpretation of Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 11.05.20173. Self-assessment by the petitioner4. Allegations of evasion of Duty5. Legal provisions regarding levy of Duty6. Validity of the Seizure Memo7. Applicability of Anti Dumping Duty retrospectivelyAnalysis:1. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Seizure Memo dated 04.10.2017, claiming it was without jurisdiction and sought clearance of goods covered under the Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31.08.2017 without paying Anti Dumping Duty. The petitioner argued that the assessment had been finalized, and any dispute should be addressed through proper channels.2. The respondents contended that the Anti Dumping Duty was leviable on the goods imported by the petitioner as per the Notification dated 11.05.2017. They highlighted that the petitioner attempted to clear the goods without paying the Duty, which was against the law. The respondents emphasized that the Duty liability should be based on the date of filing the Bill of Entry for home consumption.3. The petitioner's self-assessment without declaring the Anti Dumping Duty Notification and Safe Guard Duty was brought into question. The court noted that the petitioner did not rectify the self-assessment errors or inform Customs officials, leading to evasion of Duty.4. Allegations of evasion of Duty were made against the petitioner, stating that they sold goods without paying the Anti Dumping Duty, causing a substantial loss to the Government Exchequer. The petitioner's lack of cooperation during the investigation was also highlighted.5. The court emphasized the legal provisions regarding the levy of Duty, stating that the Anti Dumping Duty is chargeable as per the Notification in force on the date of filing the Bill of Entry for home consumption. The court also discussed the retrospective applicability of Anti Dumping Duty rules.6. The court found no error in the Seizure Memo issued by the 4th respondent, stating that the petitioner's attempt to evade Anti Dumping Duty was intercepted lawfully. The court dismissed the Writ Petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had the option to challenge any notice issued by the respondents through proper legal channels.7. The court rejected the petitioner's argument against the retrospective levy of Anti Dumping Duty, citing legal provisions that support the Duty being applicable based on the date of filing the Bill of Entry for home consumption. The court clarified that the respondents still had the option to issue a notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act if required.This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal arguments and decisions made by the court.