P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Leitwind Shiram Manufacturing Limited Vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 4) and Ors. - (High Court of Madras) (01 Mar 2018)

Date of filing of Bill of Entry for home consumption is the relevant date for levy of Duty, including Anti Dumping Duty

MANU/TN/1040/2018

Customs

The Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records connected with the Seizure Memo dated 4th October, 2017 issued by the 4th Respondent and to quash the same, insofar as the said Seizure Memo issued is without jurisdiction and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the clearance of the goods covered under Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31st August, 2017 without requiring the payment of Anti Dumping Duty under Notification dated 11th May, 2017.

The goods declared as Hot Rolled Painted Steel Plates imported, vide Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31st August, 2017, by the Petitioner, were attempted to be cleared by evading payment of Anti Dumping Duty, was intercepted by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), Customs House, Chennai. The Petitioner has self-assessed the goods under the Customs Tariff 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.

The Government of India imposed provisional Anti Dumping Duty, vide Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 8th April, 2016, on Hot Rolled flat products of Alloy or non-Alloy Steels in Coils as well as Steels not in Coils of width 4950 mm and thickness 150 mm of China, Korea, Japan and Indonesian origin. The said Notification was in existence between 8th August, 2016 and 8th April, 2017. Thereafter, the Government of India issued final Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 11th April, 2017 and as per the said Notification, the subject imported item falling under Sl. No. 36 wherein the Reference Value of USD 561 per MT is stipulated. As per the Anti Dumping Duty Notification, the Reference Value minus the Landed Value of the goods is chargeable as Anti Dumping Duty. Based on the above uncontested detail, on verification of the duty liability, it was noticed by the Respondents that, 878.395 MTs of Hot Rolled Painted Steel Plates covered under Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31st August, 2017 are liable to Anti Dumping Duty leviable under Notification dated 11th May, 2017.

As per para 2 of the Manual on Self-Assessment, it could be seen that, penal provisions have to be invoked against the importers/exporters for errors in self-assessment when there is willful intention to evade Duty or non-compliance of a condition. While filing the self-assessment, the Petitioner did not declare the Anti Dumping Duty Notification and also without Safe Guard Duty. The petitioner has not taken any steps to correct the self-assessment or brought it to the notice of the Customs Officials. The Respondents brought it to the notice of the Petitioner that, the Notification issued by the Government of India dated 11th May, 2017 will be applicable to their case. 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.

The seizure of goods was effected under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The 4th respondent had reason to believe that, the Petitioner evaded payment of Anti Dumping Duty, therefore, effected seizure of goods under Section 110. 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 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, including Anti Dumping Duty. The levy of Anti Dumping Duty under the Notification dated 11th May, 2017 is applicable to the goods cleared under the Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31st August, 2017.

The Respondent should issue a notice under Section 110(2) within six months of the seizure and if the Respondent failed to issue the notice within the time prescribed under Section 110(2), the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Therefore, the Respondents still have got time to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. If the Petitioner is aggrieved over the notice, they can challenge the same in accordance with law. There is no error or irregularity in the Seizure Memo issued by the 4th Respondent. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Tags : GOODS   CLEARANCE   DUTY   EVASION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved