Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 673 - HC - CustomsLiability of administrative charges - appellant stored 7785.925 MT of Molasses in their storage tank inside the Chennai Harbour - It is the contention of the appellant that the procurement is only for export and there is no requirement either to take ML-5 licence or to pay administrative charges under Rule 7(2) of Molasses Control Rules for transit whether the appellant is liable to pay the administrative charges treating the transaction as one covered under ML-5 licence? Held that:- The appellant appears to be under the impression that import would mean only the import from outside the country and export out of the country. There is absolutely no basis in the contention taken by the appellant - It is very clear that exporter like the appellant even for exporting Molasses to a place outside Andhra Pradesh shall pay the administrative fee for export. The state is not concerned as to whether export is to a foreign country. In short, the exporter like the appellant must pay administrative charges to the excise authorities at Andhra Pradesh for exporting molasses to a place outside the state of Andhra Pradesh. The payment made by M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited on behalf of the appellant should be considered in the context of the definition for the term “export” under the Andhra Pradesh Molasses Rules. The Tamil Nadu Molasses Control and Regulation Rules very clearly provides that every dealer desiring to import molasses from places outside the State and every dealer desiring to export molasses outside the State must procure licence in Form ML-5 on payment of administrative charges - There is no dispute that the appellant imported molasses to the State of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of exporting it into a place outside the State. There are two elements involved in this process; one relating to the import of molasses from Andhra Pradesh and another exporting the molasses outside the State. The term export/import must be interpreted in the light of the definition given to the said term in the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. There are no documents produced before us to show that while taking the export permit from the excise authorities at Andhra Pradesh, the appellant declared that it was intended for export to a particular country. The appellant conveniently failed to produce the export permit and produced only the receipt with a view to deprive this Court of the vital information as to whether the export was to the State of Tamil Nadu or it was to a foreign country. The fact that the appellant paid the export fee in the State of Andhra Pradesh would not stand in the way of the Prohibition and Excise Department in the State of Tamil Nadu to collect the administrative charges treating it as an export from the State of Tamil Nadu - there is absolutely no merit in the contention taken by the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
|