Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1054 - CESTAT ALLAHABADRefund of Safeguard Duty - proviso to Section 8C (2) of the Tariff Act - the amount that was earlier deposited by the appellant towards provisional Safeguard Duty imposed by Notification dated 19 June, 2009 - appellant claims that the goods imported by it during the relevant period fell under the excluded category (f) of B in the Notification dated 19 June, 2009 and, therefore, was exempted from levy of Safeguard Duty and therefore claimed refund of duty. HELD THAT:- Section 8C(2) provides for refund of provisional Safeguard Duty so collected, if the Notification issued after final determination exempts payment of duty. All that has to be seen, therefore, is whether the product exported by the appellant is exempted under (f) of B in the Notification dated 19 June, 2009. It is a fact that the appellant did not specifically describe the product that was imported from China in the bill of entry and only referred to the bill of lading and the invoices. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that it was not considered necessary by the appellant at that time to specifically describe the product because provisional Safeguard Duty under the Notification dated 23 March, 2009 was levied at the rate of 35% on all goods falling under Heading No.7607 (Aluminium foil) - The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Refund) mentions that it is not necessary to examine the technical specification provided by the appellant for the reason that the goods had been cleared from Customs and were not available for cross checking the authenticity of the technical specification. It has also been observed that there was no documentary evidence to verify the technical specification prescribed in the Notification at the time of import, particularly when the thickness specified was an important aspect to be considered. It is seen from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the supporting documents have been examined but no specific reasons have been assigned as to why the chemical property do not satisfy the requirement of (f) of B of the Notification dated 19 June, 2009 and only a bald statement has been made. The supporting documents filed by the appellant do require an examination so that a finding can be arrived at as to whether the product imported by the appellant would fall under the exemption specified in (f) of B of the Notification dated 19 June, 2009 - It is, therefore, considered necessary to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to specifically record a finding as to whether the product imported by the appellant, for which the appellant claims who have paid Safeguard Duty, would fall under the exempted category specified in the Notification dated 19 June, 2009. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall record an independent finding on the issue without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|