Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 20 - AT - CustomsImport of Human Hair - duty exemption benefit under Notification No.32/97-Cus - Classification of imported goods - job-worker - misstatement or suppression of facts - Department took the view that the goods were not supplied free of cost by the foreign supplier but at a cost thus they would not be entitled to duty exemption benefit - Held that:- The appellant has complied or satisfied all the mentioned requirements, however has allegedly fallen foul of the requirement that imported raw materials should have been supplied to him free of cost. From perusal of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods), Rules 1996, it emerges that while such application is required to be made under Rule 4 of the Rules ibid to the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and countersigned by the latter, the said document is then required to produce before the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Customs to allow benefit of exemption notification claimed by importer and also debit the quantity and value of imports made under a particular consignment before allowing the benefit of exemption notification - In this back and forth movement of documents between the Customs and Central Excise authorities with constant updation of the nature and quantity of goods imported and of the exemption notification availed, there cannot be any allegation that appellants have mis-stated or suppressed the fact of availment of Notification 32/97-Cus. and in particular the fact of the raw materials having been invoiced to appellants at some cost. All the requirements and conditionalities of the notification have been complied with or satisfied by the appellant. There is no dispute that appellant has not satisfied or complied with the requirements of Notification No.32/1997-Cus. After this dispute, the appellants have switched over to advance authorization scheme and carrying out the very same activities of job work and export of the resultant goods, without running with the Customs. It is only the words “free of cost” in the Notification that have caused them the niggles which led to this appeal. Notifications like 32/97-Cus. and schemes like advance authorization etc. and nothing but incentives and schemes approved by the Legislature and for the purposes of enhancing the export quotient of our country. If the intended purposes of these notifications, including the prescribed value addition etc. is complied with and there are no allegations of misuse or diversion of the imported goods, the larger substantive benefits of the notification should not be denied for a procedural requirement. The appellants are very much eligible for the exemption benefit under N/N. 32/1997-Cus. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|