CESTAT rules on redemption fee for escaped assessment of ADD
CESTAT rules on redemption fee for escaped assessment of ADD
The tribunal noted that the appellant had not suppressed any facts
The Chennai Bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the redemption fee cannot be imposed for the escaped assessment of the Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD).
LSML Private Ltd, the manufacturer of wind turbines, had imported 1262 pieces of Hot Rolled Painted Steel Plates weighing 5507.403 MT through the Chennai Port in January 2016. It bonded the goods in a public bonded warehouse.
They took a number of clearances, including for third parties and were cleared by the bond officer. In August 2017, the officers of the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) stopped the clearance after payment of the duties as per the assessment made through the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).
The department found that the goods were liable for the payment of ADD. It imposed a redemption fee on the appellants for the violation of the statute.
The bench comprising Ramesh Nair (JM) and P Anjani Kumar (TM) observed that in view of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, ADD was to be construed as customs duty. After the 2009 amendment, all provisions of the Customs Act and the Rules made thereunder were applicable to ADD. And in the case of the warehoused goods, the duty applicable on the date of clearance from the warehouse was to be recovered under the Customs Act, 1962.
The bench stated, "We find that the Ld. Commissioner has correctly held that ADD is payable by the appellants."
Ruling on the levy of redemption fine, the tribunal held, "The confiscation and imposition of the redemption fine are not warranted. The appellant-importers have not suppressed or misrepresented anything consciously. If ADD escaped the assessment, the department was free to demand it as per the Customs Act."
It further said, "The goods cannot be confiscated and penalty cannot be imposed. Therefore, we set aside the confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine and various penalties. The department's appeal has no merit and needs to be rejected except on levy of the interest."
The appellants were represented by advocate N Viswanathan.
