9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
- Denial of benefit of Notification No. 204/92 - Customs duty liability on misutilised goods - Imposition of interest and penalty - Confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act - Justification for selling imported raw materials in the local market - Compliance with export obligation despite selling raw materials - Comparison with similar cases and tribunal judgments - Consideration of penalty imposition by JDGFT - Confiscation, fine, and penalty imposition validity Denial of benefit of Notification No. 204/92: The appeals arose from an Order-in-Original denying the benefit of Notification No. 204/92 and confirming customs duty liability on misutilised goods. The Commissioner imposed interest and a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The appellants had imported raw materials against a quantity-based advance license for export but sold them in the local market instead of utilizing them as per the license conditions. Confiscation of goods and penalty imposition: The Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act due to non-availability for confiscation, imposing a fine and a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. The appellants argued that a fire accident led to the disposal of imported raw materials to prevent contamination, and they fulfilled their export obligation using indigenous materials. Comparison with tribunal judgments: The appellants cited a case where a similar situation led to the setting aside of duty liability and penalty. They argued that since they fulfilled the export obligation despite selling raw materials, penalties should not apply. The JDGFT imposed a nominal penalty of Rs. 10,000 for not informing authorities about the sale of inputs, considering the appellants' good track record and export competitiveness. Validity of confiscation, fine, and penalty imposition: The Tribunal noted that the appellants completed the export obligation, and the JDGFT accepted their plea regarding the disposal of raw materials due to a fire accident. The Tribunal set aside the duty confirmation on inputs sold domestically, as the export obligation was fulfilled. It was observed that the bond was canceled before the show cause notice, negating the Commissioner's finding of bond existence. The penalty imposed by the JDGFT was considered in reducing the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act to Rs. 10,000, given the circumstances. This detailed analysis covers the denial of benefits, confiscation, penalty imposition, comparison with previous judgments, and the validity of the confiscation, fine, and penalty in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI.
|
