The Customs Excise and Service Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) chaired by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Justice C J Mathew (Technical Member) directed to refund the differential Basic Customs Duty (BCD) deposited by the Adani Wilmar.
It was remarked by the bench that the exemption notification will effective only after the government publish it in the Official Gazette with digital signature.
This appeal aims to challenge the decision made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which upheld the order of (Deputy Commissioner (Import ) and dismissed the appeal.
Adani Wilmar Ltd., the appellant, produces a variety of edible oils, acid oils, soy gum, deo distillates, etc. The products had been imported by the appellant, and the ship transporting them had reached Mangalore Anchorage and presented a “Notice of Readiness.”
The Deputy Commissioner for Imports ruled that the 01.03.2018 Notification, which raised the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) for RBD Palm Olien Edible Grade 3 classifiable under CTH 1511 9090 from 40% to 54%, took effect on 01.03.2018 and not on 06.03.2018, as the appellant claimed, because that was the date it was digitally signed and uploaded for publication in the Official Gazette.
The appellant, while filing the three Bills of Entry, had claimed benefit of the Exemption Notification dated 30.06.2017 at Serial No. 65 that imposed duty at the @ 40%.
The appellant asserted that notwithstanding the fact that the duty rate applicable under Notification No. on 05.03.2018 should have been applied to the imported goods, the Bills of Entry were incorrectly reassessed at a higher rate of duty @ 54% under Notification dated 01.03.2018.
K.A.Jathin, representative department, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that the digital signature was made only for the purpose of e-publishing the notification in the Official Gazette and as per section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 the notification came into force on 01.03.2018, on which date it was issued.
It was also stated that, in accordance with the proviso to section 15(1) of the Customs Act, the date for determining the rate of duty is 05.03.2018, and as a result, the BCD applicable would be @54%. This is because the three Bills of Entry were filed on 01.03.2018 before the date of the vessel’s entry into port, which is 05.03.2018.
The Section 25 of Customs Act deals with the authority to provide duty exemptions. The Central Government may, pursuant to section 25(1), exempt generally, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, goods of any specified description from the whole or any portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon, if it is satisfied that doing so is necessary in the public interest.
The court observed that the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice in its press release clarified that the Gazette Notification of Government of India will henceforth be only e-published as they are uploaded.
Even though the entry into the country was granted to the vessel on March 5, 2018, the exemption notification from that date was not published in the Official Gazette until March 6, after it had been digitally signed. The bench noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the duty would be payable on the imported goods at the rates specified in that notification.
Additionally, the exemption notification was digitally signed for e-publication, and it only became effective on the date it was published in the Official Gazette. Additionally, the appellant will receive a refund of the difference duty amount she deposited along with the applicable interest rate.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
