TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that pursuant to an intelligence received by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as DRI) to the effect that Mulberry Raw Silk (2A grade) of Chinese origin is being cleared by one M/s. M.K.P. Fashions, No. 88 II Main Road, Aramane Nagar Palace, Guttahalli, Bangalore, Karnataka-560 020 through Kolkata Port without payment of Anti-Dumping duty. The Officers of the DRI intercepted the consignment of Mulberry Raw Silk (2A grade) imported by M/s. M.K.P. Fashions after the goods were assessed and the Customs duty of Rs. 6,53,366.00 were paid by the importers @ Basic - 30%, Cess - 0.05%, SAD - 4% and prior to clearance of the goods from the docks. 3. The Customs Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport took place in August/September, 2002 and the said duty was levied for the first time on 2nd January, 2003. The duty can be levied at the time of import. For the purposes of Anti-Dumping Duty, Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 has no application. The said Section 15 only applies for the purposes of duty as defined in Section 2(15) of the Customs Act which means duty of Customs leviable under the Customs Act. Anti-Dumping duty is not levied or leviable under the Customs Act. Anti-Dumping duty is leviable and chargeable under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short the 1975 Act) which has got its own taxable event and nowhere it provides about the applicability of Section 15 of the Customs Act. He submits that Section 9A(8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the same on wholly misconceived and untenable reasons. He further submits that the Commissioner has referred to the decision in the case of M/s. Alaska Exports v. Commr. of Customs reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 832. He submits that the said decision, the issue as to whether Section 15 of the Customs Act can at all be applied in relation to Anti-Dumping duty was neither contested nor decided. The decision was given on a concession by the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and can never be a binding precedent on the said issue. He submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. Apar Private Limited [1999 (112) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1999 (33) RLT 787] and LML Limited v. Collector of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 stipulates that the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules and Regulations therein relating to non-levy, short-levy, refund and appeals are applicable to the Anti-Dumping duty. It is a duty under Customs Act and it has rightly been charged by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. He, therefore, submits that the appeal may kindly be rejected. 10. In the present case, the import and the un-loading of the goods took place at Kolkata Port on 4th September, 2002 per vessel, Kata Rukum, Rot No. 382/2002, dt. 31-8-2002 Line No. Sl. 177 from Sanghai, China. The Bill of Entry for home consumption was filed by the appellants on 12th May, 2003. It was assessed on 18th June, 2003 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued after the ship carrying goods had arrived in India, i.e. after their importation had commenced - Duty specified in that Notification No. 85/97-Cus., not applicable to the said goods." 11. Same view has been expressed by the Tribunal in the cases of Commr. of Customs v. Suja Rubber Industries reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 586 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 326 and DCW Limited v Commr. of Customs reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T. 1003 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 442. The Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata has relied upon the decision in the case of Alaska Exports v. Commr. of Customs reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 832 which is not correct. The decision of Alaska Exports was based on a concession given by the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Import General Manifest is concerned, the Commissioner has failed to appreciate the fact that the import of the goods was made in August, 2002 when the vessel carrying the same was granted Entry Inwards and Rotation Number and the goods were also thereafter unloaded at the Port of Kolkata in September, 2002. Changing the Import Manifest has got nothing to do with importation of the goods into India. The same view was expressed in the case of A.C.C. for Appraisement, Group II v. Associated Forest Prod. (P) Ltd. reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.). The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Import - Rate of duty - Relevant date - Taxable event - Duty chargeable on the date of entry inwards was granted to the vessel on the basis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
