9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of plant and machinery, differential duty demand confirmation, imposition of penalties under Sec. 112. Confiscation of Plant and Machinery: The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla ordered the confiscation of plant and machinery imported by a company for a refinery project, valuing at Rs. 599,26,00,046, under Sec. 111(j) of the Customs Act. The company had the option to redeem the goods by paying a fine of Rs. 20 crores. Differential Duty Demand Confirmation: A differential duty demand of Rs. 96,26,91,711 was confirmed under the proviso to Sec. 28(1) of the Customs Act. The demand was based on the rate of duty prevailing on a specific date, leading to a dispute regarding the date of payment of duty. Imposition of Penalties under Sec. 112: Penalties were imposed under Sec. 112 of the Act on the company and its officers. The penalties ranged from Rs. 10 crores for the company to Rs. 10 lakhs for individual officers. The charges included misrepresentation of funds, misuse of trade notices, and collusion with customs officers. The company imported plant and machinery for a refinery project and stored them in bonded warehouses. Due to financial setbacks, the company faced challenges in debonding the warehouse. Attempts were made to clear the goods by processing papers for a loan facility. Cheques were submitted for duty payment, but the funds were not released on time, leading to a delay in payment. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized the goods and issued a show cause notice for recovery of differential duty. Allegations included misrepresentation of funds, illegal cancellation of warehouse license, and collusion with customs officers. The Commissioner upheld the charges, resulting in the impugned order. The applicants argued that the date of payment of duty should be considered as the date of cheque presentation, relying on legal precedents. They contested the applicability of penalty provisions and highlighted that the duty demands were paid before adjudication. The opposition contended that false declarations regarding funds invalidated protection under the Trade Notice. They argued that the actual realization of cheques determined the payment date, citing a dishonored cheque incident. The tribunal acknowledged the debatable nature of the payment date issue and decided to delve into it during the final hearing. They found merit in the argument regarding non-contravention of Sec. 111(j) and decided to waive the pre-deposit of penalties imposed on the applicants. The recovery of penalties was stayed pending the appeals, considering the payment of the disputed duty demand and the Revenue's interest safeguarded by holding goods worth Rs. 73 crores. This detailed analysis covers the issues of confiscation of plant and machinery, confirmation of differential duty demand, and imposition of penalties under Sec. 112, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment and the arguments presented by the involved parties.
|
