2003 (5) TMI 302 - AT - Customs

Show cause notice - Issuance of - EXIM - Replenished exempted material - Utilisation of - Adjournment - Ground - Confiscation - Grounds for

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the appellant to duty and penalty under Section 112 of the Act.
2. Confiscation of consignments under clause (d) of Section 111.
3. Consideration of written submissions and show cause notices.
4. Applicability of extended period for demanding duty.
5. Fulfillment of export obligation and transfer of goods to actual users.
6. Liability for customs duty dependent on the decision of the licensing authority.
7. Confiscation order under clause (d) of Section 111 and penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. The appeal addressed the liability of the appellant to duty, penalty under Section 112 of the Act, and the confiscation of consignments under clause (d) of Section 111. The Commissioner confirmed the duty liability, penalty imposition, and ordered confiscation of imported goods, allowing redemption on payment of fine.

2. The appellant was absent and sought adjournment citing the illness of the manager. The Tribunal declined the adjournment request as the grounds provided were not sufficient to warrant a delay. The Tribunal proceeded with the case based on the memorandum of appeal and relevant documents presented.

3. The Commissioner based the duty demand on imported goods intended for manufacturing carpets for export under an advance license. Evidence from witnesses indicated that the goods were sold contrary to regulations. The Tribunal considered statements from witnesses and upheld the duty demand and other actions taken by the Commissioner.

4. The contentions raised in the appeal regarding the consideration of written submissions, show cause notices, and the applicability of the extended period for demanding duty were addressed. The Tribunal found the arguments against the show cause notice and extended period to be unacceptable based on the Collector's previous orders and relevant policy provisions.

5. The appellant's claim of fulfilling export obligations and transferring goods to actual users was refuted based on policy provisions. The Tribunal confirmed that the appellant did not fall under the categories permitted for such transfers, leading to the rejection of this contention.

6. The liability for customs duty was asserted to be within the customs authority's domain, as per legal precedent. The Tribunal confirmed the duty liability on the importer but set aside the confiscation order of consignments under clause (d) of Section 111, highlighting that the import itself was unauthorized.

7. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the confiscation of goods and penalty imposition. It directed the Commissioner to reconsider the liability for confiscation under clause (o) of Section 111 and determine the penalty accordingly, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the orders issued.