9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit amount under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods. 3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on various parties involved. 4. Allegations of violation of Customs Act, denial of natural justice, and financial hardship claims. 5. Role and responsibilities of different parties in the import process. 6. Consideration of financial hardship and liability for payment of excise duty. Analysis: 1. The appellants filed applications under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking waiver of pre-deposit amount confirmed in the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, and stay from recovery. The goods in question were misdeclared as 'Brass Scrap' instead of 'Ferro Titanium,' leading to confiscation and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. 2. Investigation revealed that the imported goods were tin bearing sand with a top covering of tin-plated brass, misdeclared as brass scrap. The entire cargo was seized due to misdeclaration and gross under-valuation. The Commissioner ordered confiscation of Ferro Titanium, imposed penalties on the importers, directors, and other involved parties under various sections of the Customs Act. 3. The main appellant claimed innocence, attributing the misdeclaration to the overseas exporter and filed complaints with relevant authorities. The other appellants, involved in High Seas Sales, pleaded financial hardship and denial of natural justice. The Customs Department considered these contentions before imposing penalties. 4. The adjudicating authority found a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit amount for all appellants except the original importer, as the title of the disputed goods was transferred. The appellants were not held liable for excise duty but were required to pay the imposed penalties. 5. The main appellant's argument of relinquishing title before claiming and the High Seas Purchaser's claim of canceling the Bill of Entry were duly considered. The financial hardship faced by M/s. Vaibhav Laxmi Impex Pvt. Ltd. led to a directive to make a pre-deposit, with further waiver and stay granted upon compliance. Other appellants were granted waiver and stay due to a prima facie case being established. 6. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering financial hardship and the transfer of title in cases involving misdeclaration and confiscation of goods. The decision provided a balanced approach by requiring pre-deposit from the original importer while granting relief to other appellants based on their circumstances and involvement in the import process.
|
