Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 575 - AT - CustomsImposition of ADD - Alpha Dane Salt - Advance License scheme - non-fulfillment of export obligation - Notification No 43/2002-Cus dated 19/04/2002 - Held that:- From the plain reading of the notification it is quite evident that the exemption has been granted from the payment of “whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), and from the whole of the additional duty, safeguard duty and anti-dumping duty leviable thereon respectively under sections 3, 8 and 9A of the said Customs Tariff Act.” For availing the said exemption importer is required to execute a bond “binding himself to pay on demand an amount equal to the duty leviable, but for the exemption, on the imported materials in respect of which the conditions specified in this notification have not been complied with. The Bond that is thus executed, binds the importer to pay an amount equal to the duty leviable, but for exemption, on the imported material in respect which conditions as specified in the notification has not been complied with. The bond executed does not make any distinction between the duty leviable, but prescribes that what so ever duties that have been exempted in terms of this notification including the anti-dumping duty is required to be paid in case the conditions of notification are not fulfilled. We are not in position to agree with the contention of the appellant that the Bond/ LUT executed by them do not cover the anti dumping duty leviable on the imported material at the time of importation/ clearance of the imported material - The appellants have themselves admitted that they had not fulfilled the export obligation as specified in the Advance License issued to them by the Director General Foreign Trade. In fact they have themselves paid the duty in terms of the said bond due as per their determination on 23/10/2008. Demand is in respect of the duty short paid by the appellants on their own determination. We are not in position to agree with the submissions of the appellant. Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - period of limitation - Held that:- In the present case no duty has been short levied or short paid at the time of clearance, of goods as the same have been cleared in terms of exemption notification after fulfillment of the conditions of exemption notification. Admittedly this case is also not a case of provisional assessment under Section 18 or case of demand of amount erroneously refunded. Thus the case shall not fall in any of the category (a), (b) or (c) in the definition of relevant date under section 28, but shall be case under (d) - Thus the period of limitation for the purpose of section 28, accordingly shall have to be computed from the date of payment of duty. If that be so the demand has been made within the period of limitation from the relevant date which in the present case is the date of payment of duty i.e. 23/10/2008. Section 143A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- Since we find that demand of anti dumping duty is sustainable in terms of the bond executed by the appellant, we are not considering the pleas raised under section 143A of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal dismissed.
|