CESTAT Ahmedabad Sets Aside CVD Demand On Imports Made Under Advance Authorisation During Transitional Period

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed appeals filed by Ratnaveer Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd., its director and a customs broker. The dispute concerned Countervailing Duty (CVD) liability on imports made under Advance Authorisation between September 7, 2017 and October 12, 2017.

A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh passed the order.

Holding that the issue was “no more res-integra”, the Tribunal followed the Allahabad Bench ruling in Vishal Metal Industries and set aside the impugned order.

The dispute arose after the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the appellant had wrongly availed exemption from CVD imposed in a 2017 customs notification. The imports involved stainless steel flat products from China brought in under Advance Authorisation licences.

The department contended that exemption from CVD under Advance Authorisation became available only after issuance of another 2017 notification It argued that imports made during the intervening period therefore attracted CVD liability.

The appellants argued that the Advance Authorisation scheme was intended to ensure that exports are not burdened with duties. They contended that the subsequent notification extended exemption from CVD and addressed the anomaly.

Reliance was also placed on various judicial decisions granting relief in similar disputes concerning CVD liability during the intervening period.

The tribunal noted that the same issue had already been decided by the Allahabad Bench of CESTAT in Vishal Metal Industries. In that case, refund of CVD paid during the same period had been allowed.

“Since the issue is no more res-integra, we find no reason to differ with the above finding.”

The tribunal also recorded the appellant's submission that export obligations under the Advance Authorisation Scheme had been fulfilled. It was also submitted that discharge certificates issued by DGFT had been produced.

Accordingly, all three appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.