TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T. of 'Indonesian Steaming (Non-Cooking) Coal in bulk', declaring the value and applicable rate of duty as on the relevant date. The said Bill of Entry was assessed by the customs authorities on 07.12.2011 and the total duty payable on the said cargo was determined as Rs.3,07,39,606/-. The assessed Bill of Entry was handed over to the importer M/s. MMTC for payment of duty. Similarly, for import by M/s STC, the IGM was filed by the same steamer agent on 20.02.2012. The Bill of Entry No.6052529 for home consumption was filed on 21.02.2012 for the imported quantity of 31,699 M.T. Indonesian 'Steaming (Non-Cooking) Coals in bulk'. The said Bill of Entry was also assessed by the Customs Department and the total duty payable was determined as Rs.2,59,15,981/-. The assessed Bill of Entry was also handed over to M/s.STC for payment of duty. 3. Neither M/s.MMTC nor M/s.STC had paid the duty assessed under the respective Bills of Entry nor cleared the cargo from the Customs area. Consequently, in July/ August 2012 notices were issued to both the importers initiating action under Section 48 of the Customs Act,1962 as they failed to clear the cargo from the port area. The said importers M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l and by an Order dated 02.01.2013 this Tribunal declined to interfere, observing that the Appeal against such decision of Asst. Commissioner is not maintainable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Appellants had filed S.L.P. No.5075 of 2013 before the Honble Supreme Court. The Honble Supreme Court by its order dated 30.01.2013 disposed the said S.L.P. with the direction to the Commissioner of Customs, Paradip to dispose of their Appeal/application as quickly as possible. Pursuant to the said direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Bhubeneswar, after hearing the Appellant, had decided their Appeal. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Paradip and rejected the contention of the Appellants. Hence, the present Appeals. 6. Shri Ramesh Nair, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants, at the outset submitted that since the imported goods were neither cleared nor its consideration were remitted to the overseas seller/supplier by the previous importers, namely, M/s.MMTC and M/s.STC, the overseas supplier chose to sale the goods to other buyers in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instructions. 7. The Ld. Advocate after receiving necessary instructions has submitted that the Appellants are willing and ready to discharge all the duties, interest and other liabilities as per the assessed Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, and requested for a direction to the Customs authorities to allow amendment in the respective IGMs to the extent of substitution of their name as importers, for M/s.MMTC or M/s.STC, as the case may be, and also amendment to the Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, only to the extent of replacement of the name earlier importers with that of the Appellants, so as to facilitate them to discharge all their liabilities and clear the goods for home consumption, thereafter. He has submitted that the Applicant be allowed to file necessary amendment application to the said Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012 under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 against their request for cancellation of earlier Bills of Entry and for filing fresh Bills of Entry. The Ld.Advocate has categorical in making the statement that the Appellant would discharge al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms area. It is also not in dispute that the Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, respectively, were finally assessed by the Customs authorities and handed over to the importers M/s.MMTC and M/s. STC for payment of duty; but both the importers have failed to discharge the duty and clear the goods. In the meantime, the authorities have initiated action under Section 48 of the Customs Act. Thereafter, the importers M/s MMTC & M/s STC had filed representations with the Customs authorities informing that they could not clear the goods because of logistic problem and requested for cancellation of the respective Bills of Entry and also expressed of having no objection for amending the IGMs in favour of the new consignee to whom the goods would be sold by the overseas supplier. 10. Further, we find that the Appellants after entering into the agreement of purchase and sale of the said imported goods with the Overseas seller/supplier, had filed applications with the Customs authorities requesting amendment to the respective IGMs for incorporating their name as importer. Also, they have requested for cancellation of the earlier Bills of Entry filed and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for rejection of such request, is no more relevant. We also find that for the purpose of payment of the assessed liabilities and facilitating clearance of the goods, the Ld. Adv. for the Appellants has submitted that instead of requesting cancellation of earlier Bills of Entry and filing of fresh Bills of Entry, they would now seek amendment to the Bills of Entry to the extent of replacing their name as 'importer' in place of M/s MMTC or M/s STC, as the case may be, which in our opinion, deserves to be considered by the Department, when the Appellants are willing to discharge all their liabilities against the said imported goods. In our view, this is the pragmatic solution to put an end to the dispute/litigation, in the interest of both sides and to meet the ends of justice. The Ld. Spl. Counsel for the Revenue has also accepted the said solution. Since both sides have agreed and reached to an amicable solution, in our view, it is not necessary to enter into other technical niceties of the case, as the above observations are made on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In the result, we set aside the impugned Order and remand the case to the adjudicating auth....