2002 (5) TMI 443 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of Customs duty and confiscation of goods.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
3. Logging of export in DEEC book.

Confirmation of demand of Customs duty and confiscation of goods:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Suncity Art Exporters against the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of Customs duty and confiscation of goods imported by them. The Commissioner of Customs had imposed a fine for redemption of the confiscated goods. The Tribunal noted that the goods imported were not as per the description in the advance license for Paraffin Wax. However, considering that there was no mala fide intention and the goods were imported as advised by foreign buyers, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants. The Tribunal confirmed the demand of differential Customs duty but set aside the penalty and confiscation of goods, following the precedent set in an earlier decision involving the same appellants.

Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal, in line with its previous decision involving the same appellants, set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 112 of the Customs Act. It was observed that the appellants did not have any mala fide intention in declaring the product as Paraffin Wax, and they could have obtained the advance license even for the preparation of Paraffin Wax. The Tribunal considered all relevant facts and the Commissioner's decision not to confiscate the goods, leading to the conclusion that no penalty was imposable on the appellants in this case.

Logging of export in DEEC book:
The appellants requested logging of export in the DEEC book as they had exported the end product out of India. However, the Commissioner of Customs found that the exported goods did not contain Paraffin Wax as required by the DEEC book conditions. As the goods exported contained polishes instead of Paraffin Wax, the Commissioner held that the exported goods were not eligible to be counted towards fulfilling the export obligation or for entry in the DEEC book for logging purposes. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings regarding the logging of export in the DEEC book, finding no infirmity in the decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the demand of Customs duty but set aside the penalty and confiscation of goods, following the precedent set in an earlier decision involving the same appellants. The logging of export in the DEEC book was not allowed due to the discrepancy in the exported goods compared to the requirements of the DEEC book conditions.