Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 2015 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 243 - SC - CustomsLevy of Anti-dumping Duty - failure to fulfill its export obligation – goods were imported against advance licenses without payment - Appellant duly paid entire duty payable towards BCD, SAD and SCD after considering partial exports already made however did not make any payment towards ADD – Appellant disputed that Anti-dumping duty was exempt under Notification No.69 of 2000 and no interest was chargeable on any of four duties inasmuch as bond furnished did not stipulate payable of interest in case of default Held that:- Interest was only liable to be paid if at time of clearance of imported materials importer executes bond in which such interest was stated to be payable – As bonds were executed therefore no interest was payable on any of customs duties that were due from appellant – Also section 18(3) for levy of interest was added with effect from 2006 whereas provisional assessment were made in 1998 and final assessment in 2004, as both dates being prior to 2006 no interest was chargeable. Whether Anti-dumping duty can be included in calculating special customs duty and special additional duty. - Held that:- It was clear that no exception was carved out before 19.5.2000 in favour of Blast Furnace Manufacturers either when provisional Anti-dumping duty was first imposed or when final Notification was issued – Therefore Notification of 2000 creating exception in favour of persons like appellant had no reference to earlier proceedings and was obviously intended to apply only prospectively – Additional duty and special additional duty as per Customs tariff act, was only surcharge or additional duty of customs whereas Anti-dumping duty apart from being levied separately from levy of customs duty was also levied in completely different manner from that of customs duty – After 2002, provision relating to additional duty and special additional duty have been amended so as to expressly not include Anti-dumping duty– Impugned judgment of CESTAT set aside – Appeal allowed – Decided in favour of assessee. Levy of penalty - Held that:- the appellant has not diverted goods meant for export to the domestic tariff area. We are satisfied that market considerations made it difficult, if not impossible, for the appellant to fulfill its export obligations and are, therefore, of the view that the penalty imposed in the present case ought to be set aside. - Decided in favor of assessee.
|