Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 686 - AT - CustomsDemand against violation of bond conditions - Warehousing of goods imported - Gold Bars - N/N. 12/2012 dt. 17.3.2012 - Failure to furnish BRC or pay appropriate duty within 7 days of the stipulated period, also failed to monitor realisation of export proceeds - violation of Section 111 (j) of Customs Act, 1962 - invocation of liability under the bonds executed by the appellant - time limitation - HELD THAT:- After the appellant furnished export details, the bonds executed have been cancelled. The bonds were cancelled only after due verification of the same. The undertaking as per the bond is to comply with conditions of the Notification. As discussed above, the public notice require the appellant to furnish proof of export only. The export is by a third person. As per Public Notice dt. 6.9.2013 it is specifically stated that in respect of export of gold jewellery and export of articles of gold, the Bank Realization Certificate shall not be insisted to be produced as proof of export. The appellant has furnished E.P copy of the shipping bill as proof of export. The appellant therefore has complied with conditions of notification read along with Circular / Public Notice / Hand Book of Procedure. The department accepted the same as fulfilment of obligations as per the bond executed by them - Being satisfied of the same, the bond has been cancelled, after which no demand can be raised alleging violation of conditions of bond. Similar issue was addressed by the Tribunal in the case of Bank of Nova Scotia [2008 (7) TMI 246 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. The Tribunal also looked into the issue of non-production of BRC and held that the liability, if any, would be on the exporter. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The SCNs have alleged suppression of fact with intent to evade Customs duty. The appellant-bank has furnished details of exports and the bond was cancelled by the department after verification of the same. On such score, the SCNs issued much later alleging suppression of facts is without any factual basis. The issue on limitation is also found in favour of appellant. Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|