Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2009 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 584 - CESTAT, NEW DELHIDemand and penalty- Notification No. 58/98-Cus., dated 1-8-98- (a) whether the Commissioner is legally correct in holding that the appellant wilfully misdeclared the goods imported under bills of entry No. 167 dated 22-9-98, 248 dated 22-10-98 and 269 dated 30-10-98 as “secondary zinc ingots” and have undervalued the same and also whether the weight of the consignment has been misdeclared as 108.047 MTs as against the actual weight of 157 MT determined by the Commissioner in the impugned order; (b) whether the Commissioner is legally correct in determining the value of the three consignments at Rs.70,34,034/- (Rupees Seventy Lakh Thirty-Four Thousand and Thirty-Four) and on this basis confirming the differential duty demand amounting to Rs.25,77,967/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh Seventy-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Seven) which includes the Additional Customs Duty demand amounting to Rs.1,96,151/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety-Six Thousand One Hundred Fifty-One); and (c) Whether the Commissioner is correct in imposing penalty of Rs.25,77,967/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh Seventy-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Seven) on Shri Sudhanshu Mittal under Section 112A of Customs Act; The duty demand of Rs.25,77,967/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh Seventy-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Seven) comprises of two parts - Rs.23,81,816/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakh Eighty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Sixteen) is the demand of Customs Duty on account of misdeclaration of quality, quantity and value and the duty demand of Rs.1,91,151/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety-One Thousand One Hundred Fifty-One) is towards Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, which according to the Department was payable as the appellants were not eligible for SAD exemption under Notification No. 58/98-Cus., dated 1-8-98. Held that- As regards the eligibility for exemption from SAD, under Notification No. 56/98-Cus. We find that the importer did not have any sales tax registration and he did not give any evidence, whatsoever, that the goods have been sold from a place where sales tax was chargeable. Shri Sudhanshu Mittal was not even able to tell the full name and address of the person to whom the goods had been sold. In view of these circumstances, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 56/98-Cus., dated 11-8-98 which is available only when the goods imported are sold as such from a place where sales tax is chargeable, would not be available and the same was rightly denied to the importers, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed.
|