Case Law Details
Kopran Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (E) (CESTAT Mumbai)
Rejecting the plea that bond/LUT executed by assessee-importer did not cover the anti-dumping duty leviable on material imported under Advance Authorisation, The Tribunal observed that the bond executed did not make any distinction between the duties leviable. Larger Bench order in Caprihans and Bombay High Court decision in Dharampal Lalchand Chug were distinguished. The case was also found fit for category (d) of Explanation 1 of Customs Section 28 (relevant date).
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
The appeal is directed against the order in appeal No 03 (Gr VII D)/2010 (JNCH)/EXP-0-3 dated 6.01.2011 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) Mumbai II. By the said order Commissioner (Appeal) has upheld the order of Assistant Commissioner of Customs DEEC (Monitoring Cell) JNCH Sheva, holding as follows:
“I confirm the demand of Anti Dumping Duty amounting to rs 6,86, 759/ – along with interest @ 15% p a from the date of clearance of the goods to the actual payment of duty as per condition mentioned in para (1) of the Bond executed by the License holder under Notification No 43/2002 dated 10/04/2002 against the said advance License No 0310253750 dated 19/02/2004. I order for payment of Anti Dumping Duty of Rs 6,86,759/- along with interest on duty @ 15% p a towards duty liability from the date of clearance of the goods to the actual payment of duty.”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
