Case law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 11 Sep 2020

Stainox Alloys Pvt Ltd vs Nhava Sheve - Ii

Legal principle

Re-export of goods does not obliterate an antecedent mis-declaration at import, but confiscation must rest on a provision alleged in the show-cause notice, and Section 111(o) applies only to breach of a post-import condition of a conditional exemption notification, which an anti-dumping duty levy notification is not.

Court decision

The Tribunal partly allowed the company's appeal (No. 89652/2018) by setting aside the confiscation of the goods and the consequential penalties, allowed Shri Ketan Jain's appeal (No. 89657/2018) by setting aside the penalty on him, and rejected the company's refund appeal (No. 89464/2018), upholding the department's requirement of a fresh refund claim which had since been sanctioned on 28.02.2019.

Facts

M/s Stainox Alloys Pvt. Ltd. imported Stainless Steel CR Coils from USA against Bill of Entry dated 13.02.2014, and on intelligence the department found that 54.294 MT of coils in three containers had width less than 1280 mm, making them liable to anti-dumping duty of Rs.49,14,756/- under Notification 14/2010 read with 86/2011, alleged to be non-declared/mis-declared in the Bill of Entry. The consignment was seized on 21.02.2014, released provisionally on a bond with 20% cash security, and the company paid the full anti-dumping duty on 24.02.2014 during investigation. A show-cause notice proposed recovery of duty, confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o), and penalties on the company and its director Shri Ketan R. Jain; adjudication confirmed these, and the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the fines/penalties but upheld confiscation (directing it under Section 111(m) instead of 111(d)). Separately, the department permitted re-export of the goods in September 2014, and the company's refund claim of the duty paid was rejected on the ground that Section 26A, not Section 27, applied while the confiscation case was pending adjudication.

Key provisions