Kingston Properties Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (EP) Nhava Sheva
Customs
2018 (3) TMI 1262 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1032 (Tri. – Mumbai)
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 28-2-2018
APPEAL NO: C/320/2009 – A/85369/2018
Customs
Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical)
Shri Vinod Awtani, Chartered Accountant for the appellant
Shri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the respondent
Per: Ramesh Nair
The fact of the case is that the appellant filed bill of entry for the clearance of Royal Barge marble slabs valued at US $ 38.470 per sq. meter with total assessable value of Rs. 47,45,239/- under EPCG scheme. The appellant produced EPCG licence issued by DGFT for effecting clearance of the said consignment under EPCG scheme vide Customs Notification No. 64/2008 at concessional rate of 3% basic customs duty. As specified in EPCG licence the said licence is not valid for import of items relating to ne
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ts that they placed an order for import of marble slab US $ 35 PSM in the month of August 2008. However, import of polished marble took place in December 2008. In the meantime, appellant obtained the EPCG licence wherein import of marble was allowed subject to condition that the CIF value of imported marble should not be less than US $ 50 PSM. The appellant vide their letter dated 11/12/2008 agreed to pay duty assessed at CIF value of US $ 50 PSM for the marble slabs imported as per the Policy. He submits that the appellant did not have any mala fide intention and violations of the conditions specified in the Notification. Any violation of the conditions specified in the Notification was due to bonafide belief that marble was of OGL item. He submits that as per ITC (HS) classification of marble under import is classified under Chapter Heading 6802 9910 and shall be free provided that CIF value of import is US$ 50 PSM or above of marble imported. He submits that
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
i.-Mum.)
iii. S P Sacheva v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2002 (149) ELT 412 (Tri.-Del.)
4. Shri Ahibaran, Learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that as per the condition of notification, marble is permitted to be imported only when the price of marble is US $ 50 PSM or above. The appellant have imported the goods for which the value of the goods is US $ 38.470 PSM. Thus they have violated the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy for import of marble. Therefore, the goods was rightly liable to confiscation. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Krishna Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2014 (300) ELT 98 (Tri. Delhi).
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that there is no dispute that the appellant have contravened the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy by which goods valued below US $ 50 falls under the restricted category for which the licence is r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =