9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order denying exemption based on failure to fulfill conditions and bond terms Analysis: The appellant contested the Commissioner's order denying exemption due to non-compliance with the notification conditions and bond terms, directing payment of Rs. 28,75,236. The appellant imported "periscope night vision equipment PMK-72" for manufacturing/export, with 11 sets stolen. The appellant, relying on a B-17 bond, was asked to pay Rs. 28,73,236 for the missing periscopes. The appellant argued a calculation error, stating duty was demanded on finished goods, not the imported goods' value of Rs. 15,05,623. Citing the Customs Act, the appellant claimed duty on lost goods couldn't be demanded, referring to a Delhi High Court decision broadening "lost" or "destroyed" meaning. Analysis: The department's representative defended the Rs. 28,73,236 demand, citing the bond and appellant's undertaking, rejecting reducing liability to imported goods' value. Referring to the Customs Act, the representative argued duty remission only applied if goods were lost other than through pilferage, including theft. The Act was amended in 1983 to include "otherwise than as a result of pilferage" after "imported goods have been lost." The Court found no distinction between theft and pilferage under Section 23, indicating "lost" didn't cover stolen goods. Analysis: Considering the case's circumstances, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 15,00,000 within eight weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. Upon deposit, the remaining amount under the order would be waived. The matter was scheduled for compliance on 5-6-2006, and the application was disposed of accordingly.
|
