TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants are 100% EOU manufacturing and exporting wax candles. They have been procuring raw materials by way of import as well as from domestic units without payment of duty under the strength of Procurement Certificate (PC) and under CT-3 Certificates issued by the Jurisdictional Range Officer (JRO) as per the terms and conditions of B-17 Bond executed by them. The JRO had issued Procurement Certificate No.112/2013-14 dated 30.12.2013 for import clearance of 125 MT of 'Fully Refined Paraffin Wax' valued at USD 174375 without payment of Customs Duty to the importer's Bonded Warehouse cum manufacturing facility as per Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.3.2003 read with conditions stipulated in the B-17 Bond. The appellant filed warehouse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the imported goods on the ground that the same were not warehoused. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal and the Commissioner (A) rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. She further submitted that the appellant placed order for "Fully Refined Paraffin Wax" but has been supplied "Magnesium Sulphate in powdered form (paraffin white powder), which are defective goods and is unfit for use by the appellants in the manufacture of wax candles. She further submitted that there cannot be any deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arding the discrepancy in the imported goods and the Department vide their letter dated 21.1.2014 directed the appellant to follow the procedure in terms of Circular No.19/2007 and examine the cargo and intimate the discrepancy. Thereafter, the appellant intimated the discrepancy in terms of the letter dated 27.1.2014 which is at page 100 of the paper-book. Thereafter on intimation, the Department has not re-warehoused the goods but has directed the appellant vide their letter dated 30.1.2014 to follow the procedure in terms of Circular No.60/1999. Therefore, the appellant has followed the procedure prescribed in the Circular No.60/1999. Therefore, the appellant has followed the procedure prescribed in the Circular No.19/2007-Cus. and Circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounting to Rs. 10,000/- were deposited in the Court and therefore, the disposal of the goods by way of action is to be considered as disposal of goods. She also questioned the demand of duty under Section 72(1)(d) of the Customs Act and in terms of the conditions of the bond on the ground that the goods were duly accounted for. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: • Commissioner of Customs vs. Maini Granites Ltd.: 2005 (187) ELT 55 (Tri.-Bang.) • Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (361) ELT 742 (Tri.-Mum.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant have not complied with the various Circulars issued by the CBEC. He furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., I find that the appellant have followed the procedure prescribed in Circular No.19/2007 wherein it is clarified that the self-warehousing / bonding procedure need not be followed if any discrepancy is found at the time of examination of the imported goods. Further, I find that once the appellant lodged the complaint to the police and the impugned goods were seized and was auctioned by the order of the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 26.8.2017 and also the sale proceeds of Rs. 10,000/- were deposited in the court. Since the goods have already been auctioned by the order of the Court, it was not possible for the appellant to comply the conditions of re-warehousing certificate and further, it was not possible for the appellant to submit re-ware....