AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Corporation Ltd etc and were duly allowed to be cleared by the bond officer; in respect of 878.395 MT, vide BE No. 3056014 dated 31.08.2017, officers of SIIB stopped the clearance, after payment of the duties as per the assessment made through the EDI; it was claimed that the goods are liable for the payment of the anti-dumping duty in terms of the provisional notification no. 44/2016 (ADD) dated 08.08.2016 and final notification no. 17/2017 ADD dated 11.05.2017 and the corrigendum dated 11.07.2017 issued to the said final notification. The appellant represented to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, vide their letter dated 13.10.2017, who vide communication dated 01.11.2017, informed the appellants that ADD is applicable to the goods cleared from the warehouse after issue of notification 17/2017 ADD dated 11.05.2017. 2.1. The appellants, filed a Writ Petition bearing no. 33914/2017, before the Hon'ble High Court at Madras, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2018, while observing that Commissioner of Customs should issue a notice under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, within six months of the seizure, failing which the goods shall be returned to the person, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act; provisions of Section 15 of the Act being machinery provision and not a charging section, cannot be applied to the goods on which the levy was not in force on the date of its import (taxable event). He submits that the respondent ought to have considered the following judicial pronouncements. (a) Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co., 1996 (83) E L T 3 (SC) [paras 5, 9 & 11] (b) Sneh Enterprises 2006 (202) E L T 7 (SC) [Paras 22-26] (c) G.M. Exports 2015 (324) E L T 209 (SC) [Paras 24, 34, 36, 45, 48] (d) Suja Rubber Industries 2002 (142) E L T 586 (Tri. -Chennai) [para 6] (e) M.K.P. Fashions 2004 (174) E L T 47 (Tri. -Kol) [Paras 10 &11] (f) Ashima Fabrics 2003 (154) E L T 530 (Tri. -Mum) [Para 17] confirmed by SC reported in 2010 (341) E L T A100 (SC) (g) J.M. Agarwal Tobacco Co., 2016 (341) E L T 346 (Tri. -All) [Para 4] (h) Letter F. No. 345/2/2004 TRU (pt.) dated 10.08.2004 (i) Commissioner of Customs ICD N. Delhi versus Chandra Prabhu 4. Learned Advocate submits that the respondent tried to get over the provisions of Section 9A (1) of the CTA and Rule 20 by giving a different meaning to the term ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the reassessment, demanding ADD is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. 6. Learned Advocate submits that the reasonable belief recorded by the proper officer in para 6 to 8 of the seizure memo, invoking regulation 3 of the BE (EID) Regulation for non-furnishing of the ADD notification in column No. 19 of the check list and for not making any attempt to correct the self-assessment and thus, assume that the appellant sought to evade the payment of the ADD wilfully involving only a interpretational dispute renders the very seizure improper and illegal, particularly when the goods are still lying with the licensed public bonded warehouse awaiting clearance from the proper officer. Learned Advocate submits further that the respondent confiscated the goods under Section 111 (m) of the Act, read with regulation 3 of the BE (EID) Regulations, 2011 and holds that they knowingly attempted to remove the goods from the warehouse without payment of ADD contrary to the terms of such permission for removal from a warehouse; this finding is not even alleged in the Show cause Notice; it is not the case of Revenue that the value or any other particulars concerning the said goods did not cor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods covered by ex-bond BE no. 3056014 dated 31.08,2017 and that penalty under Section 114 A has not been imposed in respect of the other BE no. 6798264/21.09.2016. He submits that Ground no. 1 above raised by the revenue is not legally maintainable in as much as the proposal made was only to reassess the goods still lying in the warehouse and therefore question of demand of any interest under Section 28 AA does not arise at all, as there was no delayed payment of duty. Moreover, the notice itself did not propose any such demand of interest. As regards, the other ground, he submits that there is no merit in the invocation of Section 28 (4) of the Act against them for the various grounds brought out herein above and accordingly, penalty under Section 114 A is not sustainable. 11. Learned authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of OIO in respect of Appeal No. 41022 of 2019 and the grounds of appeal in respect of appeal No.41403 of 2019. He submits, inter alia, that (i). Sub Section 4A of Section 8(B) (on power of Central Government to compose Safeguard Duty) and Sub Section 8 of Section 9(A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, clearly envisages that the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the facts of the case which are extracted as under: "SECTION 3. Levy of additional duty equal to excise duty, sales tax, local taxes and other charges. - (1) Any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to a duty (hereafter in this section referred to as the additional duty) equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and if such excise duty on a like article is leviable at any percentage of its value, the additional duty to which the imported article shall be so liable shall be calculated at that percentage of the value of the imported article". "SECTION 9A. Anti-dumping duty on dumped articles. - (1) Where [any article is exported by an exporter or producer] from any country or territory (hereinafter in this section referred to as the exporting country or territory) to India at less than its normal value, then, upon the importation of such article into India, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, impose an anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping in relation to such article. ............ ................ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion (8) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which provides that provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and the rules and regulations made thereunder, including those relating to the date for determination of rate of duty, assessment, non-levy, short levy, refunds, interest, appeals, offences and penalties shall, as far as may be, apply to the duty chargeable under this section as they apply in relation to duties leviable under that Act. 15. We find that Ld. Commissioner has held as under: "22.2 The sub-section (1) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, which provides for the levy of the ADD says, "Where any article is exported by an exporter or producers from an y country or territory (hereinafter in this section referred to as the exporting country or territory) to India at less than its normal value then upon the importation of such article into India the central government may by notification in the official gazette impose an anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping in relation to such articles. 22.3 The said statutory provision makes amply clear that the notified article is liable for anti-dumping duty upon importation in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hall be levied at such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975)], or any other law for the time being in force, on goods imported into, or exported from India.......". Therefore, a plain reading of section 9A (1) of Customs Tariff Act read with section 12 (1) of Customs Act makes clear that anti-dumping duty is one of the duty of Customs and further, any interpretation with rules or statutory provisions pertaining anti- dumping duty should not be in contrast with provisions of Customs Act." 16. We also find that Ld. Counsel for the appellant-importer has relied upon the various decisions as under: (i) CCE Hyderabad Vs Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co Ltd.1996 (83) ELT 3 (SC) (ii) SNEH Enterprises Vs CC New Delhi 2006 (202) ELT 7 (SC) (iii) CC Bangalore Vs G.M. Exports 2015 (324) ELT 209 (S.C.) (iv) CC Chennai Vs Suja Rubber Industries2002 (142) ELT 586 (Tri.-Chennai) (v) M.K.P. Fashions Vs CC (Port) Kolkata2004 (174) ELT 45 (Tri.-Kolkata) (vi) CC & C.Ex Ahmedabad Vs Ashima Fabrics 2003 (154) ELT 530 (Tri.-Mumbai) (vii) CC Lucknow Vs J.M. Agarwal Tobacco Company 2016 (341) ELT 346 (Tri....