2005 (1) TMI 577 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Brine Shrimp Eggs under Customs Tariff.
2. Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Applicability of Notification No. 163/94-Cus. dated 2-9-94.
5. Remand for reconsideration of penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Brine Shrimp Eggs under Customs Tariff:
The primary dispute concerned the classification of Brine Shrimp Eggs imported by the appellant. The Commissioner of Customs classified the product under Chapter 5, while the appellant claimed it should fall under Chapter Heading 23. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision by the Mumbai CESTAT, which classified Brine Shrimp Eggs under Customs Tariff Heading 0511.99. The Supreme Court upheld this classification, confirming that Brine Shrimp Eggs are not edible and thus fall under Chapter 5, specifically Heading 0511.99.

2. Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellants contended that invoking Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, before making a Final Assessment violated the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and upheld the Commissioner's demand for differential duty and interest.

3. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 98,86,531 on the appellant-company, along with personal penalties of Rs. 5 lakh each on the Ex-Director and Chairman under Section 112(a). The Tribunal, agreeing with the classification under Heading 0511.99, confirmed the duty demand but reduced the penalties. The penalty on the appellant-company was reduced to Rs. 25 lakh, and the personal penalties were reduced to Rs. 2 lakh each.

4. Applicability of Notification No. 163/94-Cus. dated 2-9-94:
A significant point of contention was whether the imported goods were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 163/94-Cus., which exempts Animal Embryos under Heading 0511. The Judicial Member proposed remanding the case to the Commissioner to consider this exemption. However, the Technical Member noted that the notification had been rescinded by Notification No. 47/96-Cus., making the exemption inapplicable for the period in question (October 1998 to February 2001).

5. Remand for reconsideration of penalties:
The Judicial Member suggested remanding the case to reconsider the imposition of penalties based on the applicability of the exemption notification and the bona fide nature of the classification dispute. The Technical Member disagreed, stating that the rescinded notification rendered the remand unnecessary. The Third Member concurred with the Technical Member, concluding that the matter did not require remand.

Final Order:
The Tribunal confirmed the demand for duty and reduced the penalties. The penalty on the appellant-company was reduced to Rs. 25 lakh, while the personal penalties on the Ex-Director and Chairman were reduced to Rs. 2 lakh each. The appeals were otherwise rejected, and the cross-objections by the Revenue were disposed of accordingly.