2002 (12) TMI 300 - Commission - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Dispute over the applicable rate of duty on imported goods.
2. Compliance with Notification No. 94/1996-Cus., dated 16-12-1996.
3. Provisional release of seized goods.
4. Fulfillment of conditions under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispute over the applicable rate of duty on imported goods:
The applicant, M/s. Auto Tech International, and Shri Hardeep Singh agreed with the value of the goods as shown by the Revenue in their Show Cause Notice dated 16th July 2002. However, there was a disagreement on the applicable rate of duty. The Revenue calculated the duty at 62.86% under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962, while the applicant contended that the applicable rate was 16% ad valorem based on Notification No. 94/1996-Cus., dated 16-12-1996. The applicant admitted a duty liability of Rs. 13,58,187/- and had already deposited Rs. 6,00,120/-, requesting that this amount be adjusted against the admitted duty liability and the balance of Rs. 7,58,067/- be paid as directed by the Commission.

2. Compliance with Notification No. 94/1996-Cus., dated 16-12-1996:
The applicant argued that the goods under seizure were liable to duty equal to excise duty at the time and place of importation, as they were of Indian origin and re-imported within one year after exportation. The Commission noted that for the benefit of this notification, the re-imported goods originally exported under the EPCG Scheme must meet specific conditions, including the period of full export performance not having expired and necessary endorsements regarding re-import being made. The importer must have informed the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and the licensing authority about the re-importation, producing a dated acknowledgment at the time of clearance.

3. Provisional release of seized goods:
The Revenue did not object to the admission of the case and the provisional release of the goods, provided the applicant executed a bond equal to the value of the goods (Rs. 84,88,672/-) and provided a bank guarantee for 25% of the disputed duty liability (i.e., Rs. 9,94,533/-). The Commission ordered the applicant to execute the bond and bank guarantee for the provisional release of the seized goods.

4. Fulfillment of conditions under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Revenue acknowledged that the applicant fulfilled the parameters laid down under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the admissibility of the application. Consequently, the Commission allowed the applications of M/s. Auto Tech International and Shri Hardeep Singh to proceed under sub-section (1) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant was directed to pay the balance admitted duty liability of Rs. 7,58,067/- within 30 days and furnish proof of payment to the Settlement Commission.

Conclusion:
The Commission admitted the case for settlement, directing the applicant to pay the remaining duty liability and execute the necessary bond and bank guarantee for the provisional release of the goods. The applicability of the Notification No. 94/1996-Cus., dated 16-12-1996, would be further examined during the final settlement.

← Previous Next →