TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, with regard to the time of the notification No. 84/2017-Customs, dated 08.11.2017, as well as, in prior to the said notification, there was no requirement to pay the duty, had exercised the discretion. In the considered opinion of this Court, the discretion came to be exercised by the CESTAT in the facts and circumstances of the said case and that apart, the Commissioner of Customs has also disposed of the matter vide order No.12/2018 dated 15.10.2018 and nothing remains for further adjudication in this matter for the reason that the present appeal technically has become infructuous. Other issues left open to be decided in an appropriate proceedings and therefore, it need not be answered - the disposal by the CESTAT in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially, in the light of the time at which the notification came to be issued and that prior to the notification, the duty on the imported goods was also not paid. Therefore, it is answered in negative against the Appellant/Revenue. - C.M.A.(MD).No.314 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD).No.4066 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. RAJAMANICKAM For Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that the goods were non-duty paid in terms of the above said notification No.84/2017Customs dated 08.11.2017. 6. The respondent/importer made a request for provisional release of the entire goods valued at ₹ 59,15,70,344/- involving Customs Duty of ₹ 29,57,85,172/- and the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, allowed the provisional release of the goods vide letter dated 29.11.2017 with a condition to furnish a Bond equal to the value of the goods and submitting a Bank Guarantee or Cash Security equal to 60% of the value of the goods towards likely adjudication levies including duty, fine and penalty. The respondent/importer aggrieved by the said decision/proceedings dated 29.11.2017, filed the appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai. The CESTAT, Chennai, after taking note of the fact, found that the yellow peas enjoyed benefit of full exemption from duty, before the issuance of notification No. 84/2017-Customs dated 08.11.2017 and since Bills of Entry have been filed on priority entry basis, those Bills have to be deemed as a date of entry inwards granted to the said consignment. 7. The Appellate Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case has also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter would submit that in compliance of the direction issued by the CESTAT is the subject matter of challenge in the statutory appeal. The Commissioner of Customs have passed the order No.12/2018, dated 15.10.2018 and the order is extracted below:- (i). I deny the exemption from payment of Basic Customs Duty claimed on the import goods Ukranian origin Yellow Peas in bulk new crop 2017 year under Serial No.20 of the Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 as Peas (Pisumsativum) was excluded from Serial No.20 of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated.30.06.2017 vide Notification 84/2017Customs dated 08.11.2017. (ii). I order that the date of Port Entry inwards i.e., 08.11.2017 for the vessel MV RIVA WIND entered by the proper officer in the EDI system after completing the boarding formalities at anchorage on 08.11.2017 is the actual date of entry inwards and same has to be taken into account as the date for assessment of the customs duty as per the Notification No.84/2017-Customs dated 08.11.2017 read with proviso to the Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii). I order confiscation of the goods imported by them vide two bills of entry with a total assessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remaining for further adjudication in this statutory appeal. 12. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 13. It is an undisputed fact that, prior to the notification No.84/2017-Customs dated 08.11.2017, the import of yellow peas was not liable for payment of duty. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/importer, the notification No.84/2017-Customs dated 08.11.2017, came to be published at 22.15 Hrs., whereas, the formalities regarding assessment of Bills of Entry have completed much earlier at 12.50 Hrs., on 08.11.2017. 14. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the said important factual aspect and also found that there was no malafide intention on the part of the appellant in clearing the consignment without payment of duty and also recorded the findings in terms stated by the Commissioner of Customs, vide letter/proceedings dated 29.11.2017, are unfair. The Tribunal further submitted that the requirement of making pre-deposit to the extent of 7.5% of ₹ 30 Crore under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 and would be a tall order upon the respondent/importer in the light o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
