Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 807 - CESTAT MUMBAIBenefit of duty exemption under serial No. 230 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 - violation of condition No. 40(b) - confiscation of the goods imported - penalties under Sections 112(a)/(b) and 114A - Held that:- Since the contract was terminated vide letter dated 26-4-2007, all the materials, plant, equipment, etc. became the property of the employer. This included the imported equipment on which the JV had availed customs duty concession subject to fulfilment of post importation condition. The goods were imported on 26-3-2003 and the five year period for use and possession by the importer expired only on 25-3-2008. However, with the termination of the contract on 26-4-2007, the importer JV alienated the imported equipment and it became the property of CHPRCL before the stipulated period of 5 years. The condition of importation was that the importer shall use the imported equipment for construction of roads and he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of the imported equipment in any manner. Though there was no sale, the imported equipment became the property of CHPRCL due to default of contract by the importer JV. Thus the condition of exemption stood violated and consequently, the goods became liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the confiscation of the imported equipment by the adjudicating authority under Section 111(o) cannot be faulted as the same is sustainable in law. Once the goods are confiscated under Section 111, the question of option to redeem the same on payment of fine automatically arises, if the goods are not prohibited. In the present case, the goods are not prohibited and hence, option of redemption on payment of fine has to be necessarily given - assessable value of the goods declared was ₹ 1,87,25,400/- and the cum duty value works out to ₹ 2,82,37,903/-. For depreciation purposes, the normal life of a machinery is taken as 10 years. Therefore, the value of the machinery at the time of its acquisition by CHPRCL and its subsequent seizure would have come down substantially. Besides, the machinery was not acquired in a commercial transaction of purchase or sale and therefore, the question of a profit margin while deciding the quantum of redemption fine also would not arise - Penalty imposed is also reduced - Decided partly in favour of appellants.
|