IGCR clearance discrepancy demands fail unless the record shows who accepted or allowed import beyond the declared quantity.

A duty demand under the IGCR framework cannot be sustained merely on an allegation that imported quantities exceeded the declaration made for concessional-rate clearance. The scheme requires the importer to furnish estimated quantity and value, execute the prescribed bond, and obtain clearance on that basis; recovery under Rule 8 is tied to non-use for the declared manufacturing purpose. Where the record does not show which customs officer accepted or cleared quantities beyond the declaration, or how the alleged irregular clearance occurred, customs demand, interest and penalty are unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs demand, interest and penalty could be sustained on the allegation that the importer had violated Rule 5 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017 by importing quantities in excess of the declarations made for availing the exemption notification.

Analysis: The scheme of the IGCR Rules requires the importer to furnish the estimated quantity and value to the jurisdictional customs officer, execute the prescribed bond, and obtain clearance through the customs station of importation on the basis of that declaration. The goods were not disputed to have been imported for the intended manufacturing use, and Rule 8 addresses recovery where the goods are not used for the declared purpose. The allegation of excess import could not be fastened on the appellant without showing which customs officer accepted or cleared quantities beyond the declared limits. In the absence of any material showing that the jurisdictional officer transmitted a wrong declaration or that the port officer permitted clearance contrary to the declaration, the demand could not be confirmed against the importer.

Conclusion: The demand of duty, interest and penalty was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside because the alleged discrepancy in declared and imported quantities was not established against the importer on the record.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand based on alleged non-compliance with IGCR procedure cannot be sustained against the importer unless the record shows how the alleged irregular clearance occurred and by whom.

---