Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1533 - AT - Customs100% EOU - Debonding of EOU - Enhancement of value of imported goods - Whether the value of imported goods enhanced at the time of filing of into bond bill of entry can be challenged against the ex-bond bill of entry? - Benefit of N/N. 25/02-Cus dated 01/03/2002 and N/N. 25/99-cus dated 28/02/1999. Challenge to assessment of ex-bond bill of entry as regard enhanced value which was done in into bond bill of entry - Held that:- The final assessment is done only in ex-bond bill of entry for home the consumption whereby the customs duty is actually paid when the goods are cleared from the bonded warehouse. The ex-bond bill of entry is final assessment order which is appealable. Hence, the appellant had a legal right to challenge the ex-bond bill of entry contesting all the issues - It is observed that in the into bond bill of entry, value was enhanced over the amount of invoice value without any evidence which is not legal and proper. Therefore, consequently, the enhanced value adopted in ex-bond bill of entry is also not correct - the enhancement of the value is set aside. Entitlement of the exemption notification no. 25/99-Cus dated 28/02/1999 and 25/02-Cus dated 01.03.2002 - denial on the ground that the appellant have not followed the Customs (the import of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 1996 - Held that:- Initially when the goods were imported, the same were received in the factory of the appellant who was 100% EOU and admittedly used within the 100% EOU. The exemption is claimed only at the time of debonding of 100% EOU. The procedure provided under Customs Rules, 1996 is mainly for the purpose of movement of goods from port of Custom up to the factory and use thereof - Even in the case of procedure prescribed under Customs Rules, 1996, similar procedure is followed. Therefore, even if the procedure of Customs Rules 1996 was not followed but practically the similar procedure was followed with reference to notification 53/2003-Cus, if any lapse on the part of the appellant it is mere procedural lapse. For this reason, the substantial benefit of notification no. 25/99-Cus and 25/2002-Cus cannot be denied - the appellant is entitled for exemption under notification 25/2002-Cus and 25/99-Cus. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|