2023 (7) TMI 324 - AT - Customs

Importer's SAD Exemption Upheld, Revenue's Appeal Dismissed

Commissioner of Customs (Air) Chennai-VII Commissionerate Versus M/s. Cadensworth (Redington) India P. Limited

Commissioner of Customs (Air) Chennai-VII Commissionerate Versus M/s. Cadensworth (Redington) India P. Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for exemption from 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 21/2012-Customs.2. Allegations of misstatement and suppression of facts by the importer.3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation for demand of customs duties.Summary:Issue 1: Eligibility for Exemption from 4% SADThe appellant imported storage hardware and claimed exemption from 4% SAD under Notification No. 21/2012-Customs dated 17.03.2012. The Revenue doubted the eligibility, arguing the goods were not for retail sale but were customized for specific buyers and sold through tenders. The Tribunal found that the importer satisfied the conditions of the notification: the goods were pre-packaged, intended for retail sale, and had the required retail sale price (RSP) labels affixed. The Tribunal noted that the goods were sold locally in pre-packaged condition with applicable VAT/CST paid, thus meeting the notification's requirements.Issue 2: Allegations of Misstatement and SuppressionThe Revenue alleged that the importer suppressed facts and misled authorities to avail of the SAD exemption. The Tribunal rejected this, noting that the importer declared the goods correctly, complied with MRP labeling requirements, and obtained necessary permissions from customs authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were inspected by customs officers, and there was no evidence of deliberate suppression or misstatement.Issue 3: Invocation of Extended Period of LimitationThe Revenue invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging willful misstatement and suppression of facts. The Tribunal found no basis for this, as the importer had declared the goods accurately and complied with all regulatory requirements. The Tribunal highlighted that the issue was revenue-neutral, as the SAD paid at import could be claimed as a refund upon local sale with VAT/CST payment, negating any intent to evade duty.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It concluded that the importer met all conditions for SAD exemption, there was no suppression of facts, and the demand was time-barred. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the importer's compliance with the notification and regulatory requirements.