9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Customs duty and penalty. Analysis: The case involved an application by a company for waiver of pre-deposit of Customs duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 13,30,22,640/- and Rs. 2 crores, respectively. The company had imported a second-hand Jack up Rig Deepsea Matdrill and faced classification disputes with the Customs Department. The company claimed exemption under Notification No. 133/87-Cus., but the Commissioner classified the goods under a different sub-heading, imposed duty, penalty, and confiscated the goods. The company argued that they had produced a certificate as required by Notification No. 196/86-Cus., which the Commissioner rejected for not being presented at the time of clearance. They also contended that the impugned goods should be classified under a different sub-heading based on various technical and legal arguments. The company further argued that the show cause notice issued was time-barred, as it was related to goods cleared in October 1993 and the clearance was made with the permission of the Port Trust Authority. They claimed that the time limit should be computed from the date of payment and that there was no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. Additionally, they highlighted the undue hardship they would face if required to make any pre-deposit, citing severe damage to the rig and loss of income due to operational issues. In response, the Revenue argued that the impugned goods should be classified under sub-heading 8905.20 based on international classifications and expert opinions. They disputed the validity of the certificate produced by the company for exemption under Notification No. 196/87-Cus., stating that it was not issued by the specified authority. The Revenue also contended that the demand was not time-barred, as the Customs had not assessed the Bill of Entry, and the goods were removed based on a court order. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had made a prima facie case for classifying the goods under sub-heading 8905.20. The Tribunal also noted that the company failed to provide evidence of Customs assessment or clearance orders for the goods. While acknowledging the company's arguments for undue hardship, the Tribunal directed them to deposit Rs. 3 crores towards duty by a specified date, with a waiver of the remaining duty and penalty if complied with. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision balanced the classification issues, time limitations, and hardship claims, providing a specific directive for the company to follow regarding the deposit and waiver of duty and penalty.
|
