9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Duty demanded against the appellants for non-compliance with post-importation conditions under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., waiver of duty on pilfered goods, remission of duty on lost goods, quantum of redemption fine and penalty.
Analysis: 1. Duty Demand for Non-Compliance with Post-Importation Conditions: The appellants failed to comply with post-importation conditions specified in Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. The larger Bench decision confirmed the liability of the appellants to pay the demanded duty as per Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants' argument that they do not intend to redeem the confiscated machinery was dismissed, affirming the duty payment obligation. 2. Waiver of Duty on Pilfered Goods and Remission of Duty on Lost Goods: Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 allows for waiving duty on goods pilfered after unloading but before clearance for home consumption/warehousing. Section 23 provides for remission of duty on lost, destroyed, or abandoned goods. However, duty payment is mandatory post-importation unless the owner relinquishes title before clearance order issuance. The judgment emphasized the duty payment requirement under the Customs Act, 1962, in alignment with the larger Bench decision. 3. Quantum of Redemption Fine and Penalty: The adjudicating Commissioner's lenient view in determining the redemption fine and penalty was upheld, indicating no need for further reduction. The judgment affirmed the Commissioner's decision on the quantum of these amounts, maintaining the original assessment. 4. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the appellants' duty liability for non-compliance with post-importation conditions. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions under the Customs Act, 1962, and the binding nature of the larger Bench decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the duty payment obligation.
|
