Reasons Denying Concessional Rate of Duty to Ford India on Import of ‘Catalytic Converter’ is without Logic, CESTAT

The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), in a recent order granting partial relief to Ford India, held that the order of the customs department denying concessional rate of duty to the Company on the import of “catalytic converter” was without logic and the same to be reconsidered.

The Company imported catalytic converter assembly and claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty extended vide Sl. No. 265 of the impugned Notification.

According to the department, the benefit of concessional rate of duty is given vide the impugned Notification to an individual item, i.e., “catalytic converter” per se; that the imported goods in question are more than “catalytic converter” and hence, the denial of concessional rate of duty was correctly made.

The Tribunal observed that as per the impugned Notification, the concessional rate of duty is for a particular item/goods; a perusal of the Bills-of-Entry placed along with the Appeal Memorandum reflects “piece price” for the relevant item under ‘description’ column which would only mean that the price charged was for the described assembly.

“Other than this, we do not see any breakup and nor is it relevant for us now,” the Tribunal said.

It was further observed that the appellant has claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty vide Notification ibid. and has paid Basic Customs Duty at 5% as against tariff rate of 7.5% Basic Customs Duty: the benefit is apparently claimed on the amount reflected which represents the cumulative value for “Catalytic Converter Asy”. “However, in the impugned Order-in-Original, even though there are allegations in the Show Cause Notice as to mismatch of the Bills-of-Entry vis-à-vis the invoices furnished by the appellant and also as to the alleged glaring discrepancies, there is no finding recorded and thereby the allegations or suspicions in the mind of the Revenue authorities have not been taken to its logical conclusion in the impugned Order-in-Original,” the Tribunal concluded.