9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and stay against its recovery under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: 1. The applicants, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing Vitamin Pre-Mixes for animal feeding, purchased imported Poultry Feed Supplement from M/s. Sonam International. The goods were detained by D.R.I. based on suspicions of misdeclaration of origin, leading to subsequent testing by various laboratories. 2. The reports from the testing laboratories revealed discrepancies in the composition of the goods, leading to the seizure of the goods. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court granted provisional release of the goods subject to certain conditions, including the issuance of a Show Cause Notice. 3. Following the testing of samples and subsequent reports, a Show Cause Notice was issued, resulting in the absolute confiscation of the goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with the imposition of a penalty by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Allahabad. 4. The appellants argued that the goods were not pure Vitamins but contained other ingredients, justifying a different classification under the Customs Tariff. They contended that the goods were used solely for animal feeding and should not be subject to absolute confiscation and penalty. 5. The Tribunal considered relevant legal precedents, such as the case of M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, and the decision of the Madras High Court in Shri R. Sundar v. Dy. Collector of Customs, Tuticorin, to support the appellants' case for waiver of penalty and stay against its recovery. 6. After evaluating the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the appellants had established a prima facie case for granting full waiver of the penalty amount and staying its recovery. Accordingly, the pre-deposit of the penalty amount was waived, and its recovery was stayed, with an early hearing granted for the appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal precedents considered, and the final decision of the Tribunal granting waiver and stay against the recovery of the penalty amount.
|
