TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial rate though admittedly, the goods have originated from Sri Lanka. In other words, the goods were held to be of not Chinese origin and also not of Sri Lankan origin. In other words, we note that it is clear that the question of country of origin of the present goods is left hanging without a finding by the Original Authority. The goods were neither of Chinese origin nor of Sri Lankan origin. We note that the same is not a tenable position. The Original Authority has apparently exceeded the jurisdiction in going into the aspects of possible classification of inputs used by the supplier in the manufacture of impugned goods in Sri Lanka. Holding that one of the input and the final product fall under the same four digit classification, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e correctness of the claim for concessional rate of duty for the impugned goods. It was viewed that the goods were manufactured in China and imported through Sri Lanka to India. When the goods were detained for further inquiry, the appellant moved the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court by filing a writ petition, praying among other things for release of the goods. The High Court ordered for provisional release of goods on payment of customs duty and on furnishing 20% of value of the goods as bank guarantee. The Revenue filed further appeal against the High Court s order. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 7.5.2015 observed that since the show cause notice dated 22.07.2008 has already been issued by the Customs Authorities, the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nka and the Republic of India) Rules, 2000.The Original Authority disallowed the concessional rate for the impugned goods and confirmed a duty liability of ₹ 46,21,917/-. Demand for AD duty was dropped. The imported goods valued at ₹ 2,02,85,701/- were ordered to be confiscated with option to redeem on payment of fine of ₹ 30,00,000/- in terms of the bond executed at the time of provisional release. Penalty equivalent to the duty was imposed on the main appellant under Section 114 A with further penalty of ₹ 15 lakhs on the second appellant under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants strongly contested the findings recorded in the impugned order. He submitted mainly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said manufacturing process is irreversible. The classification of glass tubes in the same heading as that of impugned goods will itself not make any material difference as CFL was manufactured using both the imported and indigenous materials of various tariff headings, in Sri Lanka. (g) The enhancement of value of the impugned goods is also without legal basis. The identical goods were duly cleared by the very same Customs Department after examination and assessment and there is no justification to resort to market inquiry for value of the impugned goods. (h) The impugned order is not sustainable with reference to confiscation and penalties also. There is no mis-declaration warranting any penal action. 5. The ld. AR sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not of Sri Lankan origin. In other words, we note that it is clear that the question of country of origin of the present goods is left hanging without a finding by the Original Authority. The goods were neither of Chinese origin nor of Sri Lankan origin. We note that the same is not a tenable position. 8. The Original Authority has apparently exceeded the jurisdiction in going into the aspects of possible classification of inputs used by the supplier in the manufacture of impugned goods in Sri Lanka. Holding that one of the input and the final product fall under the same four digit classification, it was concluded that the provisions of the Rule 7 have not been fulfilled. More specifically, reference was made by the Original Authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
