2025 (12) TMI 381 - AT - Customs

Safeguard Duty demand quashed as revenue cannot reopen final self-assessments without timely appeal on bills of entry

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the impugned demand of Safeguard Duty. It held that earlier re-assessments and self-assessments ... Eligibility for exemption claimed towards Safeguard Duty - Taiwan is a different country and the country’s name is not specifically mentioned in the N/N. 19/2016-Customs (N.T.) - HELD THAT:- It is found that not only were the re-assessments completed, but the authorities themselves had also removed this particular flag from the system so that after this date, all imports went through without any hindrance and without any issue being raised by the website on account of Safeguard Duty. These two instances make us come to the conclusion that the issue had reached finality. In case, the Revenue had any grievance in respect of the re-assessed Bills of Entry or non-flagging of the issue thereof in the subsequent imports, it was for the Revenue to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) to overturn the decision of the lower authorities. This was not done by them. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Bench in the case of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise, Siliguri [2025 (11) TMI 300 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai [2016 (4) TMI 688 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV [2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] has held that even in case of self-assessed Bills of Entry, if any issue is raised by the importer towards value adopted, rate of duty, etc., appeal is required to be filed against the self-assessed Bills of Entry. What is applicable for the assessee is equally applicable for the Revenue also. In the case of 30 self-assessed Bills of Entry, it was for the Revenue to file their Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) to overturn the self-assessment done by the appellant. In the present case, this procedure was not followed. Therefore, even on this ground, the confirmed demand is not legally sustainable. It is not required to go into the details of as to whether Taiwan is a part of China or not. Based on the fact that the earlier re-assessments / self-assessments have reached finality and the Revenue has failed to file any appeal against such orders. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether a demand of Safeguard Duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is legally sustainable when earlier re-assessed Bills of Entry, allowing exemption, were not challenged by the Revenue under the statutory appeal/review mechanism and had attained finality. 1.2 Whether a demand of Safeguard Duty is maintainable in respect of subsequent self-assessed Bills of Entry, when the Revenue did not file appeals against such self-assessment despite the law requiring appeal even against self-assessment. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of invoking Section 28 where reassessment orders granting exemption attained finality Legal framework (as discussed in the judgment) 2.1 The Tribunal relied on its own earlier decision which had, in turn, examined the scheme of Sections 11A, 11B and 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the judgment of the High Court in 'Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai'. That judgment held, inter alia: (a) Orders granting refund under Section 11B are orders of adjudication and are appealable. (b) Section 11B is a complete code for refund, involving adjudication by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner. (c) Once an order under Section 11B attains finality (no appeal/review under Section 35E), the Department cannot subsequently invoke Section 11A to treat the refund as 'erroneous refund' and recover it. (d) Sections 11A and 35E operate in different fields and must be read harmoniously; what cannot be done directly by appeal/review cannot be done indirectly by invoking the demand provision. (e) One authority cannot, in collateral proceedings, declare erroneous what another adjudicating authority has already decided, when that earlier order has not been appealed against. 2.2 The Tribunal applied the above ratio, mutatis mutandis, to the Customs context, in relation to reassessment of Bills of Entry and subsequent attempts to raise demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 without first challenging the reassessment orders by appeal. Interpretation and reasoning 2.3 The Tribunal found that the case did not involve mere self-assessment. In the first four Bills of Entry: (a) The Customs electronic system itself had flagged non-eligibility to Safeguard Duty exemption on the ground that imports were from 'Taiwan'. (b) The appellant and CHA appeared before the reassessing authority, submitted documents and arguments on eligibility to exemption. (c) The competent Customs authorities, after considering the material, formally re-assessed the Bills of Entry and allowed clearance without payment of Safeguard Duty. 2.4 The Tribunal treated this re-assessment as a conscious adjudicatory decision of the proper officer on the very issue now sought to be reopened. The Revenue did not challenge these reassessment orders before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, the reassessments attained finality. 2.5 The Tribunal noted that, after such reassessment and removal of the relevant 'flag' in the electronic system, subsequent imports passed through without objection on Safeguard Duty, evidencing that the Department itself treated the exemption position as settled. 2.6 Applying the ratio of the earlier relied-upon judgment (following 'Eveready Industries India Ltd.') the Tribunal held that, once an adjudicatory order has been passed and has not been appealed or reviewed under the statutory mechanism, the Department cannot subsequently invoke the demand provision (here, Section 28 of the Customs Act) to indirectly undo or overturn that final order. 2.7 It was held that, as in the excise context where an unchallenged refund order under Section 11B cannot later be treated as 'erroneous refund' under Section 11A, an unchallenged reassessment order under the Customs law cannot be collaterally attacked by a demand under Section 28. Conclusions 2.8 The Tribunal concluded that, in the absence of any appeal against the reassessed Bills of Entry, the issue of Safeguard Duty exemption for the relevant imports had reached finality and the Department could not lawfully invoke Section 28 to raise a demand contrary to such final reassessments. 2.9 On this ground, the proceedings initiated through the Show Cause Notice and the consequent demand pertaining to the reassessed Bills of Entry were held to be legally unsustainable. Issue 2 - Maintainability of demand on subsequently self-assessed Bills of Entry without Revenue appeal against self-assessment Legal framework (as discussed in the judgment) 2.10 The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in 'ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV', which held that even in the case of self-assessed Bills of Entry, if any issue arises regarding value, rate of duty, etc., such self-assessed Bills of Entry must be challenged by way of appeal; they cannot be collaterally questioned without recourse to the appellate mechanism. 2.11 The Tribunal applied the principle that what is applicable to the assessee, in terms of the requirement to challenge self-assessment by appeal, is equally applicable to the Revenue. Interpretation and reasoning 2.12 For the subsequent 30 consignments, the Tribunal found: (a) The Bills of Entry were self-assessed by the appellant. (b) The Customs electronic system did not raise any query or objection regarding Safeguard Duty. (c) The Revenue, if aggrieved by such self-assessment or by the system's non-flagging of Safeguard Duty, was required to file appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) to challenge these self-assessments. 2.13 The Tribunal held that, following the principle laid down in 'ITC Ltd.', self-assessed Bills of Entry, once accepted and not appealed, also attain finality. The Revenue cannot bypass the appellate remedy and instead initiate proceedings under Section 28 to dispute aspects of the self-assessment that could and should have been agitated in appeal. Conclusions 2.14 Since the Revenue did not file any appeal against the 30 self-assessed Bills of Entry, the Tribunal held that the confirmed demand of Safeguard Duty in respect of those consignments is not legally sustainable. 2.15 The Tribunal explicitly declined to examine or decide the substantive question whether 'Taiwan' is a part of 'China' for the purpose of the Safeguard Duty exemption notification, holding that the appeal could be allowed on the ground of finality of reassessment/self-assessment and failure of the Revenue to pursue the prescribed appellate remedies. 2.16 On the combined reasoning that (i) the reassessment orders and (ii) the accepted self-assessments had attained finality without appeal, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief as per law.