Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 975 - AT - CustomsLevy of Export Duty - Iron Ore - tampering with the documents - It is alleged that the appellants connived to ante-date the survey report and other records pertaining to shipment and payment of cess despite non-availability of the vessel till 1st March 2007 with intent to evade the new duty that had been imposed - HELD THAT:- The correctness of the demand can be adjudged only in the context of the facts and circumstances coupled with the provisions of law defining the completion of export. Duties of customs are levied through notifications which generally come into force on the midnight of the day of imposition. The process of imports and exports is, invariably, attended by a gap between the loading/landing of goods and their exit/clearance and, in the interregnum, new duties and levies could come into force. Likewise, is the scope for enhancement, or reduction, of duties. It is for that very reason that section 15 and section 16 of Customs Act, 1962 have enshrined, in law, that certain actions and events determine the applicability of new, or altered, levies. In the present context, in connection with the goods entered for export against a shipping bill, it is the date of permission granted for loading that is relevant and is contingent upon compliance with section 51 of Customs Act, 1962. There can be no doubt that date of the initial draft survey, which is contractually necessary to establish quantity loaded, has been overwritten. We have also noted that ‘entry inwards’, granted on 28th February 2007 by the proper officer, has also been taken into account though discarded as irrelevant by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority has failed to render a finding on the validity of ‘entry inwards’ in the circumstances supra and we find no record for ascertainment of the date of entry outwards. Even though these would not, in any way, detract from the sanctity of validly granted ‘let export order’, the validity itself could be called into question on findings of facts and circumstances. It is also seen that no conclusions have been drawn from the circumstances in which the demand draft for payment of cess was not deposited on 28th February 2007 despite which ‘let export order’ was granted. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to decide upon the validity of the ‘let export order’ granted by the proper officer of customs. Being a controversy over facts, those should have been addressed in the impugned order - matter remanded back to the original authority to ascertain those facts before coming to a conclusion on the veracity of the claim of the appellant that the ‘let export order’ of 28th February 2007 is valid in law. Appeal disposed off.
|