Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 475 - CESTAT MUMBAIImport of Construction equipment - Violation of post-importation conditions of deployment - Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus - recovery of duty - confiscation - Penalty - Import of ‘slip form paver finisher for laying concrete pavement model S600’ - Concessional duty - HELD THAT:- In the context of the present dispute, the blossoming of events prior to import and after clearance, save for conditions of import, are irrelevant and reference to such in the adjudication order appears to be proverbial straw clutching of which does little to sanctify the adjudicatory process or promote the credibility of the adjudication order. We are concerned with deployment of goods that, having been procured on ‘high sea sale’ in a contractually secured transaction, are endorsed as not being for the intended project. Neither has the sale been voided nor has the award of work, and certified as being in favour of the importer by the competent authority, been questioned in the order. The threshold eligibility is, thus, beyond controverting. There is no doubt that the goods were not used for the intended project which, for whatever reason and not relevant in determining the consequences of non-utilization, is certainly cause for triggering duty liability should the notification so warrant. There is also no controverting of the submission of the appellant that the goods were not used on any project let alone on any ineligible road project. The notification stipulates that the goods cannot to be used for any ineligible activity during the ‘lock in’ period. The goods were, in accordance with the notification, ‘locked in’ till December 2015 which happened to be truncated with effect from October 2011, barely a year into the ‘lock in’ period, and by premature action in the part of customs authorities. The hasty conclusion that contract cancellation did trigger the foreclosure of entitlement under the notification is not supported by the terms and conditions of the notification. The seizure and subsequent forced debarment from use, even within the scope of the relaxation extended by amendments, effectively interfered with the free run intended in the notification without even the excuse of goods having been diverted. For this reason, the entire period of inoperative ‘lock in’ from date of seizure should stand erased for the purposes of administration of the notification. Accordingly, the recovery of duty and the confiscation ordered by the adjudicating authority are set aside, along with the consequential detriments, as also the show cause notice. The impugned goods are restored to the appellant-importer for compliance with the post-importation condition in the notification. Appeals are disposed off on these terms.
|