Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 560 - AT - CustomsDemand of interest on differential duty - Appellant could not reexport the goods since the project work was not completed within the prescribed time and most of the equipments were damaged/broken/lost in the river belt when the project was being undertaken - N/N. 27/2008-Cus dated 01/03/2008 - HELD THAT:- On going through the Notification No. 27/2008-Cus dated 01/03/2008, it is seen that the condition under (5) of Limitations and Condition’s (Col.2) states that the importer is required to execute Bond with Bank Guarantee. This Notification does not specify that at the discretion of the Customs officials, instead of Bank Guarantee, they can insist on Security Deposit. Clearly violating this provision, the officials have insisted on Security Deposit in the present case. This means that the importer had to make arrangement for the full duty amount at the time of imports which completely nullifies the benefit sought to be extended under this Notification. It is clear that this is not a case where the Bank Guarantee has been encashed by the Department when the OIO was passed. The Security Deposit was available right on the day when the import has taken place. Therefore, when the entire amount was available in the form of Security Deposit of Rs.73,65,624/- on the day of import, the question of the Appellant paying any interest till the payment of duty will not arise. In this case, it is seen that entire amount has been paid on the date of import itself, partly by way of 15% payment through Bill of Entry and balance 85% by way of Security Deposit. The Bangalore Tribunal in the case of FEMCO FILTERS (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [2006 (5) TMI 317 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] has held there was no provision under Notification No. 160/92 for demand of interest. Therefore, the demand of interest is not sustainable. As regards the confiscation, we find there was no deliberate violation of the conditions of the Notification. In the present case also in the Notification No. 27/2008-Cus dated 01/03/2008, it is seen that there is no provision to impose any interest when the differential duty is paid - the OIO demanding interest is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the interest confirmed under the impugned OIO is set aside - the Appellant is not required to pay the interest of Rs.20,71,220/- which they have paid on 26/08/2011. Redemption Fine and penalty - HELD THAT:- Coming to the issue of confiscation, Redemption Fine and penalty, in the case of SUN KNITWEAR PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [2006 (9) TMI 374 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], the Tribunal has held that Once the appellants pay the duty and interest, the goods will be out of the ambit of the said notification and they cannot be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. In the present case, as the Appellant has brought in proper explanation for non-export of the goods, following the ratio of the cited case law, we hold that the goods are not liable for confiscation and no penalty is to be imposed. Accordingly, the confiscation set aside, redemption fine and the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority - since the appellant is not required to pay interest and penalty, the amounts paid by the Appellant under the heading of interest (Rs. 20,71,220) and penalty (Rs.6,00,000) would be eligible for consequential refund to him along with interest as per the statutory provisions. Appeal disposed off.
|