TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff Item 7225 40 19 and paid the applicable Duty, except Anti Dumping Duty. The petitioner had originally filed the Warehouse Bill of Entry dated 22.01.2016 for clearance of 55.07.403 MTs of Steel Plates and Warehoused goods. Subsequently, they filed the subject Ex-Bond Bill of Entry for clearance of 878.395 MTs of Warehoused goods. It is settled position that the date of filing of Bill of Entry for home consumption is the relevant date for levy of Duty, including Anti Dumping Duty. As per Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, in the case of goods cleared from a Warehouse under Section 68, the rate of Duty and Tariff valuation, if any applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which a Bill of Entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that Section - Admittedly, the goods covered under the impugned Seizure Memo were not cleared out of Customs. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Anti Dumping Duty cannot be levied retrospectively, cannot be accepted for the reason that the date of filing of Bill of Entry for home consumption is the relevant date for levy of Duty, inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication dated 11.05.2017 claiming that the Anti Dumping Duty on the subject goods will have to be paid by taking the date of filing of the Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31.08.2017 without considering the Warehouse Bill of Entry dated 22.01.2016, which is much prior to the coming into force of the levy of even the provisional Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 08.08.2016. 2.2.Further according to the petitioner, the Ex-Bond Bill of Entry was assessed by the proper Officer of the Customs and Out of Charge Order was issued in terms of Section 47 of the Customs Act, thus, making the assessment final and if the Department is aggrieved over the said assessment, the only recourse available to the Department is to get the assessment reviewed or appealed in the manner known to law or to issue necessary notice under the provisions of Customs Act for demand of short levy or non-levy of duty, which was absolutely not done in the present case. 2.3.According to the petitioner, they have addressed various representations, but did not receive any positive reply. The 4th respondent issued a Seizure Memo dated 04.10.2017, claiming final Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 11.05.2017, in ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Act, in the case of goods cleared from a Warehouse under Section 68, the rate of Duty and Tariff valuation, if any applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which a Bill of Entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that Section. The Seizure Memo was issued under Section 110 of the Customs Act. 3.3.The respondents have not levied the Anti Dumping Duty retrospectively, but levied prospectively only. Further, the respondents contended that whether the Anti Dumping Duty is leviable or not is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated by way of a Writ Petition. In these circumstances, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4.Heard Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 5.On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that the goods declared as Hot Rolled Painted Steel Plates imported, vide Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31.08.2017, by the petitioner, were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt that the respondents brought it to the notice of the petitioner that the Notification issued by the Government of India dated 11.05.2017 will be applicable to their case. 5.4.It was also brought to the notice of this Court that inspite of the summons issued to the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, they failed to co-operate for investigation and also failed to appear before the proper Officer for enquiry. 5.5.The seizure of goods was effected under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The 4th respondent had reason to believe that the petitioner evaded payment of Anti Dumping Duty, therefore, effected seizure of goods under Section 110. 5.6.It is settled position that the date of filing of Bill of Entry for home consumption is the relevant date for levy of Duty, including Anti Dumping Duty. As per Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, in the case of goods cleared from a Warehouse under Section 68, the rate of Duty and Tariff valuation, if any applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which a Bill of Entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that Section. 5.7.Admittedly, the goods cove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
