2026 (2) TMI 546

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... imported between 18th August 2022 and 5th April 2024 at Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House (JNCH), Nhava Sheva, is the denial of benefit of concessional rate of 'basic customs duty (BCD)' at 105 instead of 15% vide notification [notification no. 50/2017-Customs dated 30th June 2017 (at serial no. 485A)] issued under the authority of section 25 of Customs Act, 1962, available for all goods conforming to description corresponding, inter alia, to sub-heading 8501 10 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 that was affirmed in order [order-in-appeal no. 915 to 964 (Gr.VA)/2024(JNCH)/Appeals dated 16th July 2024] of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II impugned here. 2. The first appellate authority had before it 50 appeals with all....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. The Appellants have submitted that vide the above 48 Bills of Entry they have imported the impugned goods "DC Miniature Motors" availing the concessional rate of duty in terms of Sr. No. 485A of Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) and the Customs Department denied the concessional rate of duty benefit and re-assessed the said Bills of Entry. The Appellant have raised the same grounds of appeal in these 48 Appeals as raised in Appeal No 1250/2022 with reference to the applicability of concessional rate of BCD under Sr. No. 485A of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017(as amended) for the import of the impugned goods imported vide the said 48 Bills of Entry. The Appellant have further submitted that the departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot have merit in the light of the finding in the other lone appeal supra. Having decided on merit, for whatever reason, it may be gainsaid that such affirmation of assessment, whether by self or on intervention, without reference to an order intended in section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 and discarding the communication of importer for 'speaking order', is questionable disposal of appeal by condonation of breach of obligation on the part of the 'proper officer' to comply with section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962. 4. It is seen from the records that the information obtained from ICES was not made available to the appellant herein by the first appellate authority despite intent to deploy the contents therein to their detriment. This is gross v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id, in one of the disputed bills, render a revision on merit but it needs noting that the said official was not a normal assessing authority but appropriated the empowerment as incidental to adjudicating confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. We are unable to fathom the recourse to section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of any reference to conditions of exemption that could have been breached when goods were yet to be cleared for home consumption. The impugned order also failed to consider the precedent in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern Plastic Ltd v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise [1998 (101) ELT 549 (SC)], that the Trib....