M.S. Clothing Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
CESTAT Bangalore held that benefit of notification no. 20/2006 dated 01.03.2006 and notification no. 21/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 not available in case of import of garment accessories. Accordingly, 4% SAD leviable.
Facts- The appellant had imported garment accessories vide various Bills of Entry and warehoused the goods and thereafter Ex-bond Bills of Entry were filed for debonding the goods by claiming the benefit of Notification No.20/2006 dated 01.03.2006 (Sl.No.50) and Notification No.21/2012-Cus. (Sl. No. 12) dated 17.03.2012. However, later it was noticed that the said goods were omitted from the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 with effect from 08.04.2011 and hence they were liable to pay additional duty of customs (SAD).
Accordingly, show-cause notice was issued and impugned order confirmed duty on the said goods for the period April 2011 to October 2012. The authorities also invoked suppression on the ground that the Bills of Entry were cleared under self-assessment and the appellant had claimed the exemption of the notifications; which they were not eligible; thus, there was misdeclaration and hence extended period of limitation was invoked.
Conclusion- Held that the appellant is liable to pay 4% SAD, thus the impugned order is upheld on merit. However, with regard to suppression I find that the Original Authority has confirmed the demand for the extended period on the ground that the bills of entry were under self-assessment procedure and the fact that the appellant has claimed the benefit of the notification, should be taken as wilful mis-statement. The Commissioner Appeals in the impugned order held that ‘declaring and claiming any exemption on the Ex-Bond Bills of Entry which is otherwise not admissible is a clear manifestation of intent which is not bona fide’. Other than the above observations, there is no indication or anything to show on record that the appellant had wilfully mis-declared or claimed the benefit of the notification. On the other hand, the Ex-Bond Bills of Entry filed by the appellant are clearly endorsed by the officers as proof of assessment. Since, the description, specific chapter heading and respective duties liable to be paid are clearly mentioned and assessed to duty by the officers, the question of reopening the assessments for the past period does not arise. There are no material facts that have been mis-declared or misrepresented except to state that in self-assessment, the appellant should have been vigilant and claimed only those benefits that were available to them. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to uphold the demand beyond the normal period.
