Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Port) Vs Limak-Soma JV (CESTAT Kolkata)
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata has dismissed appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port) against Limak-Soma JV and other entities, effectively upholding the original order that did not confiscate goods despite a differential duty confirmation. The ruling centered on the retrospective application of customs exemption notifications and the concept of continuous obligation.
The case originated from an Order-in-Original dated April 7, 2021, by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, which confirmed a differential duty amount of Rs. 4,68,95,248/- along with interest against imports by M/s. Limak-Soma Joint Venture, Hyderabad, M/s CHCHK-Soma JV, Hyderabad, M/s. Soma Enterprise Limited, Hyderabad, and M/s. CGGC-Soma JV. A penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962, was also imposed on Limak-Soma Joint Venture. However, the Commissioner did not order the confiscation of the goods, valued at Rs. 13,61,51,797/-, citing their unavailability.
Aggrieved by the non-confiscation of goods, the Revenue filed four appeals. The respondent parties, in turn, filed Cross Objections challenging the confirmed duty and penalty.
The core of the dispute revolved around the import of machinery and equipment by the aforementioned entities between 2005 and 2007. These imports, covered by fifteen Bills of Entry, were for specific projects aided by the Asian Development Bank and approved by the Government of India. The goods were cleared at a Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 84/97-CUS dated November 11, 1997, as amended. It was not disputed that the imported goods were utilized for the construction of the specified projects, which were subsequently completed.
