TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent and to quash the same,insofar as the said Seizure Memo issued is without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to allow the clearance of the goods covered under Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31.08.2017 without requiring the payment of Anti Dumping Duty under Notification dated 11.05.2017. 2.According to the petitioner, they are engaged in the manufacture of Wind Mills and parts of Wind Mills duly registered with the Excise Department and presently under the new regime of Goods and Service Tax (GST). For the purpose of manufacture of the said goods, they purchased indigenous goods as well as engaged themselves in the import of goods to be used in the manufacture of the final goods. During their course of business, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Customs and Out of Charge Order was issued in terms of Section 47 of the Customs Act, thus, making the assessment final and if the Department is aggrieved over the said assessment, the only recourse available to the Department is to get the assessment reviewed or appealed in the manner known to law or to issue necessary notice under the provisions of Customs Act for demand of short levy or non-levy of duty, which was absolutely not done in the present case. 2.3.According to the petitioner, they have addressed various representations, but did not receive any positive reply. The 4th respondent issued a Seizure Memo dated 04.10.2017, claiming final Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 11.05.2017, in terms of which the subject Ex-Bon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., was contrary to the law. The petitioner, while filing Ex-Bond Bill of Entry, had self-assessed the goods without even Safe Guard Duty. The petitioner had neither made any attempt to correct their self-assessment nor did they bring it to the notice of the Customs before payment of Duty. Therefore, the petitioner's act of omission and commission has led to evasion of payment of appropriate Duty and had caused loss to the Government Exchequer. It has also come to light that the petitioner had already sold 3600 MTs of Steel Plates on In-Bond Sale to M/s.V.K. Industrial Corporation without payment of Anti Dumping Duty, approximately amounting to Rs. 3.81 crores. The petitioner was informed that the Anti Dumping Duty imposed by the Governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....self-assessed the goods under the Customs Tariff Item 7225 40 19 and paid the applicable Duty, except Anti Dumping Duty. The petitioner had originally filed the Warehouse Bill of Entry dated 22.01.2016 for clearance of 55.07.403 MTs of Steel Plates and Warehoused goods. Subsequently, they filed the subject Ex-Bond Bill of Entry for clearance of 878.395 MTs of Warehoused goods. 5.1.The Government of India imposed provisional Anti Dumping Duty, vide Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 08.04.2016, on Hot Rolled flat products of Alloy or non-Alloy Steels in Coils as well as Steels not in Coils of width 4950 mm and thickness 150 mm of China, Korea, Japan and Indonesian origin. The said Notification was in existence between 08.08.2016 and 08.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the notice of the petitioner that the Notification issued by the Government of India dated 11.05.2017 will be applicable to their case. 5.4.It was also brought to the notice of this Court that inspite of the summons issued to the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, they failed to co-operate for investigation and also failed to appear before the proper Officer for enquiry. 5.5.The seizure of goods was effected under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The 4th respondent had reason to believe that the petitioner evaded payment of Anti Dumping Duty, therefore, effected seizure of goods under Section 110. 5.6.It is settled position that the date of filing of Bill of Entry for home consumption is the relevant date for levy ....