Parry Sugars Refinery India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Hyderabad)
CESTAT Hyderabad held that non-filing of Ex-Bond BoE for clearance from customs bonded warehouse to SEZ is merely procedural lapse hence confiscation u/s. 113(i) not justifiable since there is no malafide intent. Accordingly, appeals are partly allowed.
Facts- The appellants have an SEZ unit in Parry Infrastructure Co. Pvt Ltd and were engaged in bringing raw sugar for processing into refined sugar. The Customs officers, based on a specific intelligence regarding certain pilferage of dutiable raw sugar from Customs Area of Kakinada Deepwater port/Customs Private Bonded Warehouse of the appellant, intercepted certain trucks on 22.08.2016, apparently, carrying pilfered/ diverted from a warehouse called ‘ATR CPBW’. The appellant had obtained as Customs Private Bonded Warehouse license for storage of imported non-duty paid raw sugar in bulk at warehouse of M/s ATR Warehouse Pvt Ltd (ATR).
Based on investigation, the department felt that since export has not been made from the SEZ unit, they were not entitled for exemption from export duty on raw sugar exported in terms of Entry No.9A of Second Schedule of Export Tariff of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the same is required to be paid. It was also proposed to charge import duty of Rs.1,43,65,912/- on sugar received without cover of Into-Bond BoE and was held liable for confiscation. Similarly, quantity of 7000 MT involving import duty of Rs.9,79,46,218/-was held to be liable for confiscation u/s. 111(j). It was also proposed that quantity of 14000 MT bagged raw sugar cleared from warehouse without payment of export duty is liable for recovery of export duty of Rs.8,74,43,220/- u/s. 28(4). Certain penal provisions were also invoked against logistic operators such as transporters, C&F agents, surveyors and Customs Broker including M/s Dr. Amin Controllers Pvt Ltd (C&F Agent & Surveyor) u/s.114(ii). Penalty was also proposed u/s. 114A of Customs Act.
