Customs : Cestat New Delhi – Import of "Microlens and Splitter” is not eligible for duty exemption; Merely because the appellant sought for duty exemption and the revenue took the view that the goods imported were not as per the specifications under the notification, it is not a case where goods have been improperly imported or mis-declared so as to confiscate the goods – Demand of differential duty upheld, confiscation, fine and penalty is set aside – Appeal partly allowed [Order attached]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
21-Mar-2023 15:03:29
M/s Veekay Connectors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Order date: 17 March 2023
Facts:
- The appellant, M/s Veekay Connectors Pvt. Ltd., had filed a bill under section 46 of Customs Act, 1962 through their authorized custom broker under the invoice issued by PPI, Republic of Korea for clearance of goods declared as ‘PLC Splitter Module.’ The bill was assessed and were examined on 100% basis, and were found as per the invoice and bill of entry.
- The importer sought for custom exemption under No. 12/ 2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012, Sr. No. 376, List No. 21 & Sr. No. 15 where duty benefit is granted for "Microlens and Splitter” but the goods did not have lenses and hence, it did not meet the criteria for exemption.
- Accordingly, show cause notice dated 19.05.2015 was issued to the appellant as to why the goods should not be confiscated under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act and why penalty be not imposed under section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act. Since the goods were provisionally released redemption fine should not be imposed under section 125 of the Customs Act. SCN was confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide Order in Original dated 10.05.2016.
Issue:
- Whether the product declared as “PLC Splitter Module” is entitled to the benefit Duty Exemption under the notification ?
Order:
- The Tribunal observed that merely because the appellant sought for duty exemption on the belief that the goods imported by him fall within the scope of the exemption notification and the revenue took the view that the goods imported were not as per the specifications under the notification, it is not a case where goods have been improperly imported or mis-declared so as to confiscate the goods invoking section 111(m) of the Customs Act.
- Consequently, the appellant was not granted duty exemption and the goods were provisionally released on payment of regular duty. There was no reason for confiscation of goods or redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or the penalty to be levied under the Customs Act.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation