Case Details: Skipper Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata (2025) 27 Centax 246 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) & K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
- Shri Kartick Kurmi, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri Subrata Debnath, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, engaged in the manufacture and export of Galvanized Transmission Line Towers and Parts, obtained four Advance Authorizations in 2010 for duty-free import of Zinc Ingots under Customs Notification No. 96/2009 for use in manufacturing export goods. The Customs authorities issued a Show Cause Notice, demanding customs duty on the ground that the exported goods had been partly manufactured from domestically procured raw materials before the import of Zinc Ingots. The Revenue contended that the export obligation could not be discharged with reference to subsequently imported raw materials. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court, arguing that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had certified the fulfilment of export obligations and the executed bond had been released, thereby precluding the Customs authorities from initiating proceedings.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that once the DGFT certifies the fulfilment of the export obligation and the bond executed by the assessee is released, the Customs authorities lack jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy. It was emphasized that the determination of export obligation compliance falls within the exclusive domain of the DGFT, and Customs authorities cannot re-evaluate or dispute the fulfilment of obligations once certified. Accordingly, the demand for customs duty was deemed unsustainable.
List of Cases Cited
- Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (249) E.L.T. 273 (Tri.-Bang) — Relied on [Paras 4.1, 7.2]
- Commissioner v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited — 2021 (378) E.L.T. 42 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 4.1]
- Commissioner v. Zincollied (Ind) Ltd. — 2014 (300) E.L.T. 475 (Tri.-Bom) — Relied on [Paras 4.3, 4.4, 7.4]
- Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2003 (162) E.L.T. 680 (Tri.-Bang) — Referred [Para 4.3]
- Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1997 (94) E.L.T. 449 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 4.3]
- PCL Oil & Solvent Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2020 (374) E.L.T. 110 (Tri.-Ahmd) — Referred [Para 4.3]
- Standard Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2001 (136) E.L.T. 124 (Tri.-Bom) — Relied on [Paras 4.2, 7.3]
- Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 2003 (151) E.L.T. 254 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 4, 7.1]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 36/97-Cus., dated 16-9-1997 [Paras 4.4, 7.4]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 93/94-Cus. [Para 4.4]
- Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. [Para 4.4]
- Notification No. 94/2004-Cus. [Para 4.4]
- Notification No. 96/2009-Cus., dated 11-9-2009 [Paras 2, 2.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 7, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8]
