Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 682 - AT - CustomsLevy of Anti-Dumping duty - clearance of goods which have been imported and warehoused before the issue of Notification imposing Anti-Dumping Duty is issued - Confiscation - interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- It is very clear that Section 15 applies squarely to goods warehoused under Section 68 as it applies to goods presented for clearance for home consumption under Section 46 of the Customs Act. Sub-section (8) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which provides that provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and the rules and regulations made thereunder, including those relating to the date for determination of rate of duty, assessment, non-levy, short levy, refunds, interest, appeals, offences and penalties shall, as far as may be, apply to the duty chargeable under this section as they apply in relation to duties leviable under that Act. In view of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Antidumping Duty is to be construed as Customs duty and therefore in view of the amendment that was carried out in 2009 all the provisions of Customs Act and the Rules made thereunder are squarely applicable to Antidumping Duty and as such in case of warehoused goods duty applicable as on the date of clearance from warehouse is to be recovered in terms of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 - ratio of case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI VERSUS SUJA RUBBER INDUSTRIES [2002 (1) TMI 174 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] and INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI [2003 (2) TMI 109 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] are not applicable as the same are rendered before the amendment in sub-section (8) of Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in 2009. The appellant-importers have argued that as they have warehoused the goods that have been put to the disadvantage forcing the importers to have imported during intervening period i.e. after the goods have been imported and warehoused and the same are cleared from the warehouse. However, it is found that taxation does not work on the principle of the equity, if the appellant has availed the facilities under the warehousing provisions, they have to bear with the associated disadvantages, if any. It is not open for the appellant-importer to claim best of both ends - the observations of Commissioner in distinguishing between ‘import’ and ‘importation’ are at best superfluous and do not in any way help or harm the conclusions arrived at. Levy of Interest - HELD THAT:- When all the provisions of Customs Act are made applicable to Antidumping Duty, Section 28 is also squarely applicable. Therefore, there are no infirmity as far as demand of duty is concerned. However, we hold that interest, if any, for the delayed payment, interest is to be paid from the date of ex-bonding by the appellant-importer as payment of interest is consequential to the demand of duty in respective manner. Confiscation - imposition of redemption fine - HELD THAT:- The confiscation and imposition of redemption fine are not warranted as here was nothing that the appellant-importers have consciously suppressed or misrepresented. If ADD escaped assessment, the department is free to demand the same as per provisions of Customs Act, 1962. However, for the same reason, goods cannot be confiscated and penalty cannot be imposed. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine and various penalties are set aside. Appeal disposed off.
|