2024 (2) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant had filed prior Bills of Entry No. 2218283 dated 23.06.2017 for import of copper concentrate and claimed exemption under Advance Authorization Scheme in terms of Notification No. 18/2015-Cus. The said exemption is from payment of all duties of customs, including CVD and SAD. The appellant had submitted the Advanced Authorization for debit along with bill of entry along with other import documents. As the value of goods was provisional at the time of import the assessment was made provisionally. The vessel was scheduled to arrive on 30.06.2017, but got delayed and arrived on 01.07.2017. GST was introduced on 01.07.2017. Consequently, IGST became payable in imported goods w.e.f 01.07.2017 and CVD or SAD were subsumed in IGST. On 01.07.2017 entry inward was granted and the vessel M V TAO was anchored at the anchored point of Dahej Port. Since, the Dahej port does not have a place of unloading and keeping the cargo on the jetty (port), the copper concentrate was directly unloaded on the conveyer belt, and transferred and stored within the premises of importer, which is adjacent to the jetty. The discharge of cargo commenced on 06.07.2017 with the permission from customs off....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ization of bill of entry and the said bill of entries stand finalized by revenue. In these circumstances no further demand under Section 18 could have been raised. He argued that since no duty is demanded at the time of entire proceedings are without any basis. He argued that in these circumstances Section 28(4) is not invocable and consequently no penalty under Section 114A can be imposed. 2.5 Learned Counsel pointed out that the ship was scheduled to arrive on 30.06.2017, however due to bad weather, it was delayed on 01.07.2017. He pointed out that on 01.07.2017 IGST was levied, CVD and SAD which were hitherto earlier exempted under Advance Authorization Scheme were subsumed in IGST which was not exempted. 2.6 Learned Counsel further argued that IGST exemption applies to import made after 01.07.2017 if the advanced authorization was issued prior to 01.07.2017. He relied on the following decisions: Jindal Dyechem Industries (p) Ltd Vs. Union of India-2018 (8) GSTL 23 (Del.) JTL Infra Ltd Vs. Union of India (29) GSTL 303 (Del) 2.7 He argued that these decisions have been ignored by the Adjudicating Authority solely on the ground that appellants have not g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t from 01.07.2017, IGST became payable on imports. It seems both the importer as well as revenue were un-aware of these changes. The discharge of cargo commenced on 06.07.2017, after obtaining permission of the Customs Officer and was completed on 08.07.2017. As there is no space in the customs area, the goods were directly transferred to appellant's premises as was the regular practice. The assessment of bill of entry was make on provisional basis on account of the valuation issued which was to be finalized after testing of goods. The appellants suo moto made a request vide letter dated 21 August, 2017, 24 August, 2017, 29 August, 2017 for recall and re-assessment of bill of entry and allowing the appellant to pay IGST. The appellant paid IGST as well as interest thereof immediately thereafter. On 30 January, 2020, the department granted out of charge and on 05 February 2020 final assessment of provisionally assessed bill of entry was done. From the above facts, it is apparent that there was no mala fide involved in the instant case from the appellants. The entire procedure happened in supervision of the Customs Authorities. As soon as the appellant got to know about the change....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant though violated the Regulation but it was not intentional, particularly when the levy of IGST came into effect on the same day i.e. 01.07.2017. Considering this position, I am of the view that a lenient view has to be taken, hence, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed in above terms." 4.3 Years after of culmination of proceedings against DHIL the impugned proceedings were initiated against the appellant by issue of SCN dated 18.08.2021. It is noticed that the appellant in the appeal memorandum stated that, it was general practice for 13 years that out charge was issued on the same day of arrival of vessel and unloading of cargo of cargo was done immediately. It has been stated that even on holidays, the officer boarded the vessel and granted orders for entry inwards and requisite out of charge order was passed the very next day. From the facts of the case it is apparent that what happened in the instant case was a matter of regular practice. It was not as if the revenue was not aware that goods cannot be stored in jetty and have to be directly transferred to the factory premises. It all happened with the concurrenc....