Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1359 - CESTAT BANGALOREConcessional rate of duty - EPCG scheme - additional duty liability had not been disclosed in the B/E - import of Fruit Dehydration Plant (Spray Evaporation Machine – SPV 10) from Germany - HELD THAT:- The appellants have failed to fulfill the export obligation and accordingly, Customs Department has issued a show-cause notice to recover the applicable duty on the imported goods. We find that the representation of the appellants could not succeed before the EPCG Committee and the appellate authority. This being the fact of the case, we find that Customs Authorities, as submitted by the Commissioner (AR), cannot take an independent decision. We further find that the Bill of Entry is dated 6.5.1996 and the appellants sought to revalue the goods and approached the Commissioner with a request dated 18.1.2001 and 9.2.2001 for re-assessment of the Bill of Entry. We also find that the appellants have submitted a Bond at the time of import binding themselves to the conditions envisaged in the Notification No.110/95 dated 5.6.1995. We find that the Department was within its rights to impose the conditions of the Bond for violation of the provisions therein. We find that the impugned show-cause notice is about the recovery of duty foregone in terms of the conditions of the Notification. The appellants having not appealed against the assessment of the Bill of Entry and having not requested for provisional assessment, cannot demand the same while replying to the show-cause notice. Such a request, is beyond the scope of the provisions of Customs Act. Once a machine is imported in terms of the EPCG license wherein certain export obligation has been fixed by the DGFT authorities and particularly, in the case when the EPCG Committee has rejected the appeal made by the appellant, Customs cannot revalue the goods and reduce the export obligation accordingly. We find that the appellants have shown no case for redetermination of the value of the imported goods in terms of the provisions of Customs Act either. There is no infirmity in the lower authorities coming to a conclusion that the redetermination, of the value was not possible in the facts and circumstances of the case and under the provisions of law - appeal dismissed.
|