9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Duty demand and penalty imposed on a company for importing goods without paying customs duty. 2. Classification of goods under Chapter Heading 98.03 of the Customs Tariff Act. 3. Liability of employees for carrying dutiable items as personal baggage. 4. Justification of duty demand, penalty, and impugned order. Analysis: 1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal arose from an order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 22,99,941/- on a company and imposing penalties on employees and representatives for importing components of textile machinery without paying customs duty. The company challenged the duty demand, arguing for duty calculation based on individual items rather than Chapter Heading 98.03. However, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand, stating that all dutiable articles imported by a passenger in personal baggage fall under Heading 9803 of the Customs Tariff Act, regardless of specific headings. The company's liability to pay duty was affirmed based on their admission and decision to import goods in personal baggage despite knowing the duty requirements. 2. The Tribunal found the penalty imposed on the company justified, considering their awareness of the duty requirements and decision to import goods as personal baggage against legal provisions. The penalty was supported by evidence of a Board of Directors meeting where the decision to import goods in personal baggage was made, despite the knowledge that it was against the law. The penalty upheld against the company was deemed appropriate in light of these circumstances. 3. Regarding the employees who carried the components as personal baggage, the Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on them under Section 112(a) for rendering the goods liable to confiscation by not declaring them and paying duty. The employees' awareness of the dutiable nature of the items in their baggage was highlighted, justifying the penalties imposed on them for violating customs regulations. 4. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the duty demand and penalties imposed on the company and employees. The decision was based on the company's admission of liability, the classification of goods under Chapter Heading 98.03, and the employees' awareness of the duty requirements for imported goods. The Tribunal rejected the appeals, affirming the duty demand, penalties, and overall order issued by the Commissioner of Customs. Judgment: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the duty demand and penalties imposed on the company and employees for importing goods without paying customs duty, citing the classification under Chapter Heading 98.03 and the employees' awareness of duty requirements. The impugned order was upheld, rejecting the appeals and affirming the duty demand and penalties.
|
