TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced by the appellant, it was open to them to take up the matter with the Issuing Authority. The impugned order passed afresh does not reflect anywhere that the Issuing Authorities were referred to in the matter and enquiries caused about the veracity of the certificate, questioned by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), to substantiate its finding in the impugned order. On the question of engaging in commercial activity on part of the Hydraulic Study Department of Calcutta Port Trust, it was pointed out that Hydraulic Study Department is a separate unit/institution under the aegis of Calcutta Port Trust and carries out no commercial activities - There is no evidence of any further high sea sales of the said goods prior to their importation. Thus, the veracity of Hydraulic Study Department being the importer is not in doubt. There has been no evidence provided to substantiate the contention of the adjudicating authority that HSD was engaged in commercial activity and therefore the imported goods were not eligible to exemption benefit. The Hydraulic Study Department of Calcutta Port Trust were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 70/80-Cus dated 26.03.1981 and Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h; and were to be used for such purposes only by the said institution and the said institution was not engaged in any commercial activities. 3. The administrative controlling ministry, the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India, granted the requisite certificate of exemption for import of various scientific machineries, equipments, instruments, apparatus and other accessories and spare parts, in favour of Hydraulic Study Department of the Calcutta Port Trust. 4. During the period 1992 to March 1996, the appellant thus imported various scientific instruments and apparatus, orders for which were placed on the foreign suppliers for supply of such equipments or parts thereof for replacement of the accessories. The invoices issued were in the name of the appellant. The bills of lading indicated that the appellant was the importer. The bills of entry were filed by the Controller of Stores as the agent of the appellant and clearance was done by the Material Management Department on behalf of the appellant. The Commissioner of Customs (Port) however issued a show cause notice dated 07.09.1999, inter alia alleging that the certificate were obtained fraudulently by submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. 5. Vide an order dated December 29, 2000, the Commissioner of Custom (Port) however confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 7,07,77,168/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,07,77,168/-,denying the benefit of exemption notifications referred supra. 6. In the first round of litigation the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the Tribunal which remanded the matter back to the Commissioner with the following observations- We have heard the submissions made there from both sides. A reading of the impugned order shows that basically the benefit of notification has been denied to the appellant/applicant on the ground that the certificates produced by him as envisaged in the notifications are not correct inasmuch as the same has been obtained by misleading the Ministry of Surface Transport. We are afraid that the above reasoning of the Commissioner for rejecting the certificate provided by the appellant/applicant is not correct inasmuch as it is not for the Custom authorities to decide upon the correctness or otherwise of the certificates in question. If the authorities were having any doubt about the correctness of the certificates produced by the appellant/applicant, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was open to them to take up the matter with the Issuing Authority. The impugned order passed afresh does not reflect anywhere that the Issuing Authorities were referred to in the matter and enquiries caused about the veracity of the certificate, questioned by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), to substantiate its finding in the impugned order. 10. As to a specific query raised by the bench, as to why the bill of entry has the importer s name as Controller of Stores, KoPT, in response the appellant states that the bills of entry are prepared by the agent of the importer, who prepared the bill of entry in the name of their principals, as both the importer as well as the agent were part of the same principal. He further stated that the document of import is ideally the bill of lading issued by the exporter, which specifically contains the appellants name as the importer. The invoices raised by the exporter also clearly show the name of the importer as Hydraulic Study Department, who are also the appellants herein. 11. On the question of engaging in commercial activity on part of the Hydraulic Study Department of Calcutta Port Trust, it was pointed out that Hydraulic Study Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
