Beneficial owner concept not retroactive; buyer after home consumption clearance is not liable for customs reassessment.

Goods cleared for home consumption cease to be imported goods and a subsequent buyer who purchased and assembled them after clearance is not chargeable as importer for customs duty, interest or penalties, so demands against such purchaser cannot be sustained. The beneficial owner concept was not in effect at the time of the show cause notice and thus cannot be invoked retrospectively. Each Bill of Entry constitutes a separate unit of assessment and the statute contains no mechanism to aggregate different Bills of Entry to reclassify or re assess duty against a person who was not the importer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty, interest and penalties could be lawfully demanded from the appellant who purchased and assembled goods after they had been cleared for home consumption; and (ii) Whether goods imported under different Bills of Entry can be combined for re-assessment of duty against a person who was not the importer for those Bills of Entry.

Analysis: Section 28 prescribes serving notice on the person chargeable with duty or interest; section 12 charges duty on goods imported into India; section 46 requires the importer to present a Bill of Entry and section 17 provides for assessment of duty; section 47 permits clearance for home consumption only after duty is paid. Definitions in section 2 show that once goods are cleared for home consumption they cease to be imported goods and the owner thereafter is not an importer for purposes of charging customs duty. The concept of beneficial owner was introduced only by amendment effective from 31.3.2017 (section 2(3A) and amended section 2(26)); the SCN in this case was issued prior to that amendment. Each Bill of Entry constitutes a separate unit of assessment; there is no provision in the Act for aggregating goods imported under different Bills of Entry for joint assessment or re-assessment against a non-importer. Differential or retrospective aggregation of separate Bills of Entry to re-classify and re-assess duty against a buyer who acquired goods after customs clearance is unsupported by the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The demand of duty, interest and penalties against the appellant cannot be sustained; the appellant is not liable as importer for goods already cleared for home consumption and separate Bills of Entry cannot be combined to re-assess duty against him. In favour of Assessee.

---