2013 (11) TMI 595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....applicants are functionaries of the company who are aggrieved by the respective penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Act. 2. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The appellant-company filed 19 bills of entry for clearing what was declared in some of the bills of entry as coking coal and in some others as semi-soft coking coal. The imports were made between March 2009 and March 2010. The importer claimed the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 (Sl No. 68 & 68A). The notification, at Sl. No. 68, prescribed 'nil' rate of duty for coking coal of ash content below 12%, falling under heading 2701 of the CTA schedule. It granted the same exemption in respect of coking coal of ash content of 12% or more als....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on the importer who had paid up the duty. d) In a similar case considered by the co-ordinate bench at Chennai in respect of import of coking coal and PCI coal through Nagapatnam port and the same company has obtained favourable Final Orders viz. Final Order No. 874 and 875/2012 dated 25.07.2012 in Appeal Nos. C/19 and 20/2012 (Commissioner of Customs, Trichy Vs. JSW Steel Ltd.). e) The entire demand of duty is beyond the normal period of limitation. As the appellant-company had been importing identical commodity over a period of time and the dispute as to the nature of the imported commodity had been simmering between the department and the importer for such period, it was not correct for the customs authorities to invoke the extended p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the other. The Final Order cited by the learned counsel considered a similar issue and held that the importer was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Revenue's plea for giving retrospective effect to the 2011 March/August amendments of the notification was rejected. A similar test report of the chemical examiner was also rejected. Even though the issue was not examined from the trade parlance angle, the Tribunal examined the manner in which coking coal was defined/understood in foreign customs jurisdictions. By and large, the reliance placed by the appellant-company on the Tribunals decision is prima facie apposite. This apart, their plea of limitation is also worth considering at this stage. From the records....