2018 (6) TMI 848 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in duty dispute, orders release of goods with bank guarantee.

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the assessment of imported goods without payment of duty was unjustified. It was determined that ... Liability of Customs Duty - Non-duty paid goods - Yellow peas - N/N. 84/2017 dated 08.11.2017 - it was alleged that the goods were assessed without payment of duty and a part of the consignment was already cleared - Held that:- The goods imported by the appellant leer yellow peas enjoyed full exemption from duty before issue of Notification No. 84/2017 on 08.11,2017, Since the Bills of Entry in the present case were filed on prior entry basis, the date of Bill of Entry has to be deemed as the date of Entry Inwards granted to the vessel. There is dispute as to the correct date on which the Entry Inwards was granted to the vessel “MV Riva Wind' - there is no malafide intention on the part of the appellant in clearing the consignments without payment of duty, Under the circumstances, the terms stated by the Ld. Commissioner for provisional release of the impugned goods, which was seized is unfair. The customs authorities are directed to finalize this case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months - appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Assessment of imported goods without payment of duty.2. Seizure of goods by DRI and justification.3. Provisional release of goods and conditions imposed.4. Dispute regarding the date of Entry Inwards for the vessel.5. Liability of appellants to pay customs duty.6. Fairness of terms for provisional release of seized goods.7. Direction for expeditious finalization of the case.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner regarding the assessment of imported goods without payment of duty. The appellant contended that the goods were assessed before the notification imposing duty was issued, and an out of charge order was already issued under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the seizure by DRI was unjustified, and the Customs authorities could issue a demand notice for payment of any unpaid customs duty. Reference was made to relevant case law to support this argument.2. The Revenue justified the Commissioner's order, stating that as per Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Bill of Entry filed before the vessel's arrival is deemed to be filed on the date of Entry Inwards granted for the vessel. The AR argued that since the vessel was granted Entry Inwards on the same date as the issuance of the duty imposition notification, the goods were liable for duty payment. The AR supported the seizure of goods by DRI and deemed the provisional release conditions fair and just.3. The appellant further argued based on a document from the Port of Tuticorin that the Entry Inwards for the vessel should be considered the date when the vessel was permitted to unload the cargo, which was before the duty imposition notification. However, the AR countered that the actual Entry Inwards was granted on a later date.4. The core issue revolved around the liability of the appellants to pay customs duty on the imported goods. The Tribunal found no malafide intention on the appellant's part in clearing the consignments without duty payment. Considering the significant duty liability, the Tribunal deemed the terms for provisional release unfair and ordered the release of goods subject to a bond with a bank guarantee equal to 7.5% of the duty liability within two weeks.5. The Tribunal directed the customs authorities to expedite the finalization of the case within three months, emphasizing that detailed arguments and merits of the case were not delved into, allowing both sides to refer to legal provisions and precedents.