The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customs duty exempted as an export obligation under the advance authorisation scheme has complied. It was found that the goods were cleared under the advance authorization scheme, according to which all the duties are exempted by way of debiting in the advance licence scheme.
M/s Jewel Utensils Industries , the appellant/assessee is a manufacturer and exporter of stainless steel utensils. The appellant imported a cold-rolled flat product of stainless steel of a size ranging from 600 mm to 1250 mm in width by availing the exemption under the Advance Authorization Scheme (Notification No. 18/2015-Cus) dated April 1, 2015. As per Notification No. 61/2015-Cus (ADD) dated December 11, 2015, the goods “Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel” of size ranging from 600 mm to 1250 mm, covered under CTH 7219 and originating in or exported from China, attract anti-dumping duty at a specified percentage of the landed value (AV+BCD).
The department contended that the goods covered under CTH 7219 originated and were exported from the People’s Republic of China. Therefore, it appeared that Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) as per Notification No. 61/2015-Cus (ADD) dated 11.12.2015 is leviable on the same. It was alleged that the appellants had self-assessed bills of entry under Section 17(1) of the Customs Act, 1961, without imposing anti-dumping duty. Thus, the appellants are liable to pay a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act.
The assessee contended that the adjudicating authority has not given any findings on any of the submissions made by the appellants; thus, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and is in violation of principles of natural justice; thus, the same is liable to be set aside.
It was evident that there were no allegations of non-fulfillment of the export obligation, and the allegation of the non-levy of an exempted duty is not on the grounds that duty was not exempted, but on the subtle grounds that the bond amount falls short to the extent of the ADD, i.e., is exempted.
The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the adjudicating authority has denied the exemption on the ground that export obligations have not been fulfilled. The Export Obligation (EODC Certificate) shows that the export obligation under the advance authorization scheme has been complied with accordingly. The sole ground for denying the exemption by the adjudicating authority does not exist.
While allowing the appeal, the tribunal held that the adjudicating authority had not seen the EODC during the adjudication, therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered in light of the EODC submitted by the appellant.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
