1997 (7) TMI 270 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and penalty sought by M/s. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd.
2. Waiver of penalty sought by Shri B.B. Verma.
3. Classification of goods under Heading 39 of the CTA.
4. Differential duty calculation discrepancy.
5. Mis-declaration of goods and tariff classification.
6. Imposition of penalty on importers and Shri B.B. Verma.

Analysis:
1. The application from M/s. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. sought waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 15,65,317/- and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs, while Shri B.B. Verma sought waiver of a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.
2. Shri J.S. Agarwal argued that the demand confirmed in the case of 12 Bills of Entry was time-barred and that there was no deliberate mis-declaration by the assessee. He contended that the goods were correctly classified under Heading 39 of the CTA, supported by the opinion of Shriram Institute for Industrial Research. However, the Tribunal found no merit in his argument regarding the classification of goods.
3. Shri Agarwal also raised concerns about differential duty calculation under Chapter 32, claiming a discrepancy in the duty rates for inorganic and organic pigments. However, his argument lacked substantiation and was not considered valid by the Tribunal.
4. On the other hand, Shri A.K. Madan, representing the Revenue, argued that the importers had deliberately mis-declared the goods and tariff classification, justifying the penalty imposed. He supported the Collector's order and the imposition of penalties on both the importers and Shri B.B. Verma.
5. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment involving the same importers, where it was established that pigment preparations were classifiable under Chapter 32. It was noted that the show cause notice invoked Section 28(1) of the Customs Act based on various grounds, indicating a prima facie case against the importers.
6. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the importers, considering it a result of mis-declaration. They directed M/s. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. to pay Rs. 2 lakhs towards penalty and Shri B.B. Verma to deposit Rs. 25,000. Non-compliance would lead to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the issues raised, and the final decision regarding the waiver of pre-deposit, penalty imposition, and differential duty calculation discrepancies.