2002 (9) TMI 573 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 28,17,037.
2. Confiscation of goods imported by M/s. Diamond Traders under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act.
3. Allegations of wilful misdeclaration of description and value leading to short-levy of customs duty.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a).
5. Evidence implicating the applicant based on statements by Custom House Agent and export declaration.
6. The role of the applicant in the importation process and relation to the goods received.
7. Demand of duty and penalty from the applicant.

Analysis:
The case involved a stay petition for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 28,17,037 concerning the confiscation of goods imported by M/s. Diamond Traders under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that there was no evidence to establish their role as the importer, as they had not placed any order with the foreign supplier, made any payments for the goods, or filed any necessary documents for clearance. The Tribunal noted the lack of proof that the appellant was the importer, leading to the order demanding duty from the appellant being set aside.

Regarding the allegations of wilful misdeclaration of description and value leading to short-levy of customs duty, the appellant's counsel highlighted the absence of evidence linking the appellant to the importation process. The Tribunal observed that the Department failed to establish a case against the appellant as an importer, as no duty can be demanded from a person other than the importer or their agent. Consequently, the duty demand from the appellant was rejected.

The imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) was also contested, with the Tribunal emphasizing that penalty under this section can only be demanded from the importer. As the evidence did not prove the appellant's status as the importer, the penalty imposition was set aside. The Tribunal concluded that without sufficient evidence demonstrating the appellant's role as the importer, both the duty demand and penalty imposition on the appellant were unjustified.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay petitions and appeals, ruling in favor of the appellant due to the lack of evidence establishing their status as the importer or justifying the demand for duty and penalty. The decision was based on the fundamental principle that duty and penalties can only be imposed on importers or their agents, which was not proven in this case.