2001 (9) TMI 1030 - AT - Customs

Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Out of turn - Confiscation and penalty - Mis-declaration - Redemption fine - Tribunal s order

Issues:
1. Delay in clearing consignment causing urgency in delivering goods for project completion.
2. Application for waiver of duty deposit and penalty, and stay of Commissioner's order.
3. Discrepancy in quantity and shipment date of imported marble blocks.
4. Commissioner's order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposition.
5. Importer's contention of bona fide import, policy compliance, and leniency request.
6. Tribunal's view on leniency, excessive profit margin determination, and ignored charges.
7. Applicant's plea for goods release due to mounting demurrage and project impact.
8. Departmental representative's support for Commissioner's reasoning.
9. Tribunal's acceptance of shipment date policy, leniency consideration, and excess quantity liability.
10. Delay attribution, destuffing delay, and departmental charges accountability.
11. Tribunal's critique of Commissioner's mathematical understanding.
12. Inclusion of demurrage in profit margin calculation.
13. Tribunal's analysis of profit, loss, and security deposit determination.
14. Directions for importer to clear goods, pay security, and duty, pending appeal hearing.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The issue arose due to the delay caused by the department in clearing a consignment, leading to urgency in delivering goods for a project. The Tribunal took up the stay application out of turn based on these grounds.

2. The application sought waiver of duty deposit, penalty, and stay of the Commissioner's order imposing penalties on the importer.

3. The discrepancy in quantity and shipment date of the imported marble blocks led to objections by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, resulting in the Commissioner's order of confiscation and penalty imposition.

4. The Commissioner's order included confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty imposition, based on the findings of quantity discrepancy and policy violation.

5. The importer contended bona fide import, policy compliance, and requested leniency, arguing against the excessive profit margin determination.

6. The Tribunal critiqued the Commissioner's lack of leniency, excessive profit margin determination, and ignorance of demurrage and container detention charges.

7. The applicant pleaded for goods release due to mounting demurrage and the potential impact on the project.

8. The departmental representative supported the reasoning behind the Commissioner's order.

9. The Tribunal accepted the shipment date policy, considered leniency, and found the excess quantity liable for confiscation and penalty.

10. Issues of delay attribution, destuffing delay, and accountability for departmental charges were raised.

11. The Tribunal critiqued the Commissioner's mathematical understanding concerning profit margin calculations.

12. The inclusion of demurrage in profit margin calculation was emphasized by the Tribunal.

13. The Tribunal analyzed profit, loss, and determined the security deposit required pending appeal hearing.

14. The Tribunal directed the importer to clear goods, pay security, and duty, pending the appeal hearing.

← Previous Next →