1995 (12) TMI 157 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of custom duty and penalty on the appellant for non-utilization of imported material.
2. Interpretation of export obligation fulfillment in terms of quantity and value.
3. Compliance with conditions of Notification 117/88 for duty exemption.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, imposing custom duty, interest, and penalty on the appellants for not utilizing 36104.50 Kg of brass scrap imported duty-free for manufacturing Brass Art Wares and Handicrafts. The appellants argued they fulfilled the export obligation in terms of value, but the authority found discrepancies between the export passbook entries and the actual export. The tribunal held that duty exemption requires fulfilling the export obligation in terms of both quantity and value, leading to the upheld of the Collector's order.

2. The appellant contended that the passbook was issued under Appendix 14A, requiring export obligation fulfillment in terms of value only. However, the tribunal rejected this argument as the passbook was issued under Appendix 14C, covering sensitive items like brass scrap. Since the passbook was not under Appendix 14A, the export obligation had to be met in terms of both quantity and value. The evidence provided by the appellants was deemed insufficient to prove fulfillment of the export obligation, leading to the dismissal of their argument.

3. The tribunal examined the conditions of Notification 117/88, which permitted duty-free import on the condition of utilizing the goods for manufacturing export products. As the appellants failed to account for the utilization of the imported material as required by the notification, they were found to have contravened the conditions. The tribunal also highlighted the provisions under Para 281 of the Import-Export Passbook Scheme regarding the utilization of exempt material, reinforcing the non-compliance by the appellants.

4. Regarding the imposition of a penalty, the appellants argued against it, stating that there was no charge of loaning, selling, or transferring the imported material contrary to the notification's conditions. However, the tribunal held that the charge of contravening Section 111(o) of the Customs Act was established, justifying the penalty under Section 112(a). Despite reducing the penalty amount, the tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty as per the Collector's order.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, emphasizing the requirement to fulfill export obligations in terms of both quantity and value for duty exemption. The appellants' failure to provide sufficient evidence of utilization of the imported material led to the dismissal of their appeal and the imposition of a reduced penalty for the contravention of customs regulations.