Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1164

Whether an assessee is liable to pay 100% of duty in case of provisional removal of goods or is liable to pay 20% as the provisional duty as per regulation 2 of the customs (provisional duty assessment) Regulations, 1963.
CASE:  BHAIYA FIBERS LTD. V/S ADDL. DIR. GENERAL OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
CITATION:  2012 (281) E.L.T 396 (DELHI)
ISSUE:-   Whether an assessee is liable to pay 100% of duty in case of provisional removal of goods or is liable to pay 20% as the provisional duty as per regulation 2 of the customs (provisional duty assessment) Regulations, 1963.
BRIEF FACTS: - The petitioner had imported PVC laminated flexible films, gummed vinyl, printable vinyl, PVC foam board from some parties in china. The goods were imported between January and September, 2007 through the ports at Kolkata, Mumbai and Tuticorin. In all, the petitioner had filled 16 bills of entry in respect of the imported goods. There is no dispute that in respect of 4 bills of entry imported through Kolkata port, the goods have been cleared on a provisional assessment. The Petitioner has furnished bank guarantees and has cleared those goods. Insofar as the balance 12 bills of entries are concerned, one of them relates to Tuticorin, one to Kolkata and the remaining 10 to Mumbai. The Petitioner seeks the release of the goods covered by these bills of entry on a provisional assessment basis and is of view that they are liable to pay duty equal to 20% as the provisional duty as per regulation 2 of the customs (provisional duty assessment) Regulations, 1963, since the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has some objection with regard to valuation of these goods. The revenue or the respondent is of view that the petitioner should pay 100% of duty even in case of provisional removal of goods from the factory.  
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:- Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963. Regulation 2 thereof reads as follows: - "REGULATION 2. Conditions for allowing provisional assessment:-
 Where the proper officer on account of any of the grounds specified in sub-section (I) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), is not able to make a final assessment of the duty on the imported goods or the export goods, as the case may be, he shall make an estimate of the duty that is most likely to be levied hereinafter referred to as the provisional duty. If the importer or the exporter, as the case may be, executes a bond in an amount equal to the difference between the duty that may be finally assessed and the provisional duty and deposits with the proper officer such sum not exceeding twenty per cent of the provisional duty, as the proper officer may direct, the proper officer may assess the duty on the goods provisionally at an amount equal to the provisional duty."  A reading of the aforesaid Regulation shows that where there is a dispute with regard to the valuation of imported goods, the proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962 may release those goods on an importer/exporter executing a proper bond and depositing with the proper officer an amount not exceeding 20% of the difference in duty as claimed by the importer/exporter and the provisional duty as assessed by the proper officer.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:-  It is contended by learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent that the goods have been grossly undervalued by die Petitioner and during investigation it has transpired that the goods imported by the Petitioner, which are lying seized under superdarinama ought to be valued at US$ 1640/PMT whereas the Petitioner has declared their value between US$ 870/PMT to US$ 1000/PMT. They demanded that petitioner should deposit 100% of the duty even in case of provisional removal of goods.
REASONING OF JUDGEMENT: - It was noticed by central government standing council that there was difference between provisional release of goods and provisional assessment of goods but both are same in substance because provisional removal of goods can not be done without provisional assessment of goods. Thus as per regulation 2 of the customs (provisional duty assessment) Regulations, 1963 petitioner was liable to deposit 20% of the duty.
DECISION:- Respondent was directed to provisionally clear the goods forming the subject matter of 12 bills of entry have been mentioned in the petition upon the petitioner to  depositing an amount equal to 20% of the difference in the provisional duty as sought to be assessed by the Respondent and on the basis of the value prima facie determined by the respondent, that is US$ 1640/PMT and the value declared by the petitioner, that is between US$ 870/PMT AND US$ 1000/PMT and the petitioner was also liable to execute a bond to pay the balance of the differential duty as and when it is finally assessed. Writ petition disposed off.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com