Case Law Details
Oki India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (NS-V) (CESTAT Mumbai)
Introduction: The case of Oki India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs (NS-V) reached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai, with the primary contention being the denial of entitlement to the benefit of a customs notification. This article delves into the reasons for the appeal, the issues raised, and the subsequent order by CESTAT Mumbai.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background of the Case: In the appeal against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – II, Oki India Pvt Ltd sought early hearing, emphasizing the dismissal of their entitlement for a customs exemption. The crux of the matter revolved around an alternative notification, as per the Share Medical Care v. Union of India decision.
2. CESTAT’s Hearing and Decision: CESTAT heard arguments from both sides and granted the application for early hearing. Considering the limited issue, CESTAT decided to take up the appeal for disposal. The appellant, an importer of banking equipment, sought duty clearance under specific tariff items and notifications.
3. Goods Reclassification and Claim for Exemption: The dispute arose when the adjudicating authority reclassified the goods, leading to the denial of the claimed exemption. The appellant argued not only on the merits but also invoked an alternative notification, which the first appellate authority acknowledged but rejected due to not being claimed at the time of assessment.
4. Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962: The article analyzes Section 149 of the Customs Act, which provides for amending the bill of entry. The importer’s inability to exercise this option until the claimed notification was deemed non-applicable became a critical point. CESTAT emphasized the authority’s duty to consider the eligibility for such claims.
5. CESTAT’s Remand and Decision: CESTAT remanded the matter, setting aside the first appellate authority’s order. It directed the original authority to decide the eligibility for the claimed exemption afresh, considering it as an option under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The article concludes by highlighting the operative part of the CESTAT Mumbai order pronounced on November 28, 2023.
Conclusion:
The Oki India Pvt Ltd case serves as a noteworthy instance of the nuanced application of customs notifications. CESTAT Mumbai’s remand emphasizes the importance of considering alternative claims, even if not initially raised. The decision underscores the procedural aspects and the role of the competent authority in determining eligibility for claimed exemptions.
This comprehensive article provides a detailed analysis of the Oki India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs case, shedding light on the intricacies of customs notifications and the regulatory framework surrounding them.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
In this application, several reasons were adduced to urge early hearing of appeal against order1 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – II; however, the principal one appears to be that entitlement for benefit of exemption afforded by alternative notification which, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Share Medical Care v. Union of India [2007 (2) TMI 2 – SUPREME COURT], should have been considered was discarded by the first appellate authority.
2. We have heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorised Representative.
3. Considering the submission made, we allow this application, and, in view of the limited issue before us, we are also inclined to take up the appeal itself for disposal; with the consent of both sides, we do so.
4. The appellant, M/s Oki India Pvt Ltd, is one among the half dozen importers of equipment that is widely used in the banking industry for dispensing of currency notes and, in importing the goods against bill of entry no. 7844805/12.03.2022, had sought clearance at ‘nil’ rate of duty, applicable to goods corresponding to tariff item 8472 9030 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with notification no. 12/2012-Cus dated 17th March 2012 for the period up to 29th June 2017 and with notification 50/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017 for the period thereafter. In the impugned bill of entry, the goods were described as ‘ATM – Recycler – G8 Automatic banknote deposit & dispense machine’; however, with the finding that the equipment is capable of other functions, the adjudicating authority undertook reclassification holding the goods to be more in conformity with description corresponding to tariff item 8472 9099 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Before the first appellate authority, appellant herein had, in addition to arguments on merits, also pleaded entitlement to the benefit of notification no. 25/2005-Cus dated 1st March 2005 as alternative. Though the first appellate authority did acknowledge eligibility for exemption thereby, the claim for exemption was denied solely owing to not having been sought for at the time of assessment.
5. We have heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorised Representative at length.
6. The sole issue appears to be the denial of entitlement to benefit of alternative notification which, in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in re Share Medical Care, should have been considered in proceedings emanating from denial of notification originally sought for even if not claimed in bill of It appears that disinclination on the part of the first appellate authority is attributable to such not having been claimed at the time of import. Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 provides for amendment to bill of entry upon application being sought from the competent authority prescribed therein which, however, was not exercisable by the importer of the impugned goods until the claimed notification was clearly held as non-applicable. That was intimated statutorily only on conclusion of adjudication proceedings and was, thus, an option only at stage of first appeal. The ostensible eligibility of the appellant for benefit of notification no. 25/2005-Cus dated 1st March 2005 has been set out in the impugned order, and, in such circumstances, should have been left to the competent authority to dispose off such plea considering it to be exercise of such option available in section 149 of Customs Act, 1962. It is for the original authority to take a decision on the eligibility for such claim and, to decide the matter afresh, we set aside the impugned order directing that duty liability, and other attendant consequence, if any, be determined by the original authority.
7. Application is disposed off and the appeal is, accordingly, disposed off too.
(Operative Part of the Order pronounced in the open court on 28th November 2023)
Notes:
1 [order-in-appeal no. 313 (Gr.V)/2023(JNCH)/Appeals dated 16th March 2023]
Author Bio
