9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Waiver of penalties for misdeclaration of country of origin in importation of goods before the introduction of provisions related to anti-dumping duty in 2004. Analysis: The case involved the applicant seeking waiver of penalties related to the misdeclaration of the country of origin in the importation of goods. The Revenue contended that the goods, which were imported from China but declared as originating from Sri Lanka, were liable for anti-dumping duty due to misdeclaration by the importer. The Revenue argued that the applicant, being the actual person behind the import, was liable for penalties. However, the applicants clarified that they were only seeking waiver of penalties, not the duty imposed under the impugned order. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff and the Customs Act, which included penalties with effect from 2004. Since the import in question occurred in 2003, the Tribunal noted that misdeclaration to avoid anti-dumping duty would not make the goods liable for confiscation or penalties before the 2004 amendment. The Tribunal also referenced a previous decision in the case of Supreme Woollen Mills Ltd. v. CC to support the applicant's claim for waiver of penalties. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the demand for anti-dumping duty was confirmed, and penalties were imposed based on the misdeclaration of the country of origin by the importer. However, since the provisions for confiscation of penalties related to violations of anti-dumping duty were introduced in 2004, and the import in question predated this amendment, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had a strong case for the waiver of penalties only. As a result, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of penalties for the present applicants for the hearing of the appeal, and the stay petitions were allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the waiver of penalties for the misdeclaration of the country of origin in the importation of goods before the introduction of provisions related to anti-dumping duty in 2004. The decision was based on the timing of the import, the legal provisions applicable at that time, and the absence of duty demanded for the present applicants.
|
