TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the dispute in this appeal of M/s Nexo Industries Ltd, in which several individuals and entities have been penalised under section 112 and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 also, is the classification of goods imported in July 2009 against licence no. 3010061661/18.06.2009 under 'duty exemption entitlement certificate (DEEC)' scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and corresponding notification no. 93/2004-Cus dated 10th September 2004 enabling procurement of '"cold heading quality (CHQ)" non-alloy steel rod/wire rod' for manufacture and export of 'bolts and nuts made of "cold heading quality (CHQ)" steel' in fulfillment of obligation thereof. 2. In the bills of entry, the goods were declared as liable, but for the exemption affor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt but also proceeded to fasten detriments which may, at best and even only indirectly, be consequences of implied breach of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and, we dare say, with less than deserving application of mind. 3. Before adumbrating on the flawed outcome, on which the competent reviewing authority too was remiss in discharging its statutory obligation, it may be useful to dwell, briefly though, on the facts and circumstances leading to the appeal. M/s Nexo Industries Ltd, as holder of the said 'authorisation', cleared 1107.29 metric tons of 'CHQ wire rod, grade SAE10B21' imported from Korea against bill of entry no. 903273/17.07.2009 and 1089.11 metric tons of 'prime steel CHQ wire rod hot rolled, grade SAE10B10A' from China ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ishment of 'other alloy steel' therein, warranting re-classification in heading 7227 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to deny the eligibility of 'authorization' issued for goods that are composed of 'non-alloy steel' with consequential recovery of duty foregone as above and differential duty of Rs. 15,44,100 and Rs. 22,49,311 respectively by revaluing the goods to Rs. 3,28,45,482 and Rs. 3,33,93,757, aggregating Rs. 6,62,39,240, upon rejection of the declared value of US$ 520 per metric ton and US$ 570 per metric ton respectively and substitution with US$ 610 per metric ton under the authority of rule 4 and rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. It would appear that revaluation was e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may be gainsaid that simultaneous recourse to two successive options in Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 runs counter to the sequential application that is prescribed in the very Rules as consequence of rejection; it is also demonstrative of lack of certainty of the degree of similitude of the impugned goods with those referred to for comparison. It should also have been borne in mind that the Rules framed, in accord with section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, are, contextually, not exclusive to proceedings for recovery of duties under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 but also intended for assessment of 'imported' goods under section 17, and section 18, of Customs Act, 1962 and to, impliedly, brook distincti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was submitted that there is no dispute over the imported goods having been used in the manufacture of exported products and, with fulfilment of export obligation having been accepted by the licencing authority vide communication from their files [F no. 30/21/40/24/AM 10 dated 19th August 2021], it was not open to customs authorities to revisit eligibility. 7. Learned Counsel cited the decisions of the Tribunal in Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Goa [2017 (348) ELT 577 (Tri.-Mumbai)], in Jindal Drugs Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ludhiana [2018 (362) ELT 281 (Tri.-Chan.)], in Condor Footwear (I) Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad [2019 (367) 653 (Tri.-Ahmd....