2013 (11) TMI 1351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al 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/s MMTC & M/s STC had submitted to the Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eclined 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 India as he continued to be the owner of the said go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 all liabilities towards duties, interest etc., assessed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....try 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 sought permission to file fresh Bills of Entry for clearanc....