9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of DEEC Advance Licence conditions, liability to confiscation under Customs Act, penalties imposed under Section 112, diversion of duty-free imported raw materials, discharge of duties with interest, benefit of Notification No. 80/95, appeal against penalties. Analysis: The case involved a situation where one company, M/s. M. J. Exports, had obtained a DEEC Advance Licence for importing raw materials with an obligation to fulfill export requirements. However, they failed to meet these obligations and diverted/sold the goods to another company, M/s. Tudor India Ltd, which then exported the final products without utilizing the DEEC benefits. The Managing Director of M/s. M. J. Exports, who was also a Director in M/s. Tudor India Ltd, was penalized under Section 112 (a)/112(b) of the Customs Act, along with the company, for these actions. Upon examination, the appellate tribunal found that there was no evidence of liability to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act for the diversion of duty-free imported raw materials. It was noted that the duties on the raw materials imported by M/s. M. J. Exports, which were not used for DEEC obligations, had been paid along with interest before the show cause notice was issued. Importantly, no penalties were imposed on M/s. M. J. Exports by the adjudicator, despite the initiation of proceedings by the Commissioner based on a show cause notice. Given the absence of liability for confiscation of the imported goods and the discharge of duties with interest, the tribunal concluded that penalties under Section 112 could not be upheld. Consequently, the appeals were successful, the impugned order was set aside, and the penalties imposed on M/s. Tudor India Ltd and the Managing Director were disposed of accordingly. The decision emphasized the importance of establishing clear liability before imposing penalties under the Customs Act, ensuring adherence to legal provisions and due process in such matters.
|
