2005 (9) TMI 569 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on imported goods under Notification No. 140/91-Cus.
2. Allegation of imported toner cartridges cleared without payment of duty.
3. Requirement to maintain records of utilization of imported goods.
4. Imposition of penalty on the Company and Associate Manager.
5. Compliance with provisions of Notification 140/91 and Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from an Order-in-Original (OIO) confirming duty demand on goods imported under 26 bills of entries and imposing penalties. The appellants were alleged to have imported toner cartridges under Notification No. 140/91-Cus. exempting duty if used for software development within one year. The Commissioner found the appellants failed to provide evidence of utilization within the stipulated period, violating notification terms.

2. The appellants contended they filed an affidavit to prove utilization despite not maintaining records. However, the Commissioner held that the notification required maintaining records to support the claim of utilization. The absence of records led to the conclusion that duty exemption conditions were breached, justifying duty demand and penalties.

3. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner, emphasizing the appellants' obligation to demonstrate the utilization of imported items as per the notification. Merely stating utilization in an affidavit was insufficient without supporting records. The burden of proof rested on the appellants to establish compliance with the exemption conditions, which they failed to do.

4. The imposition of penalties on the Company and the Associate Manager was upheld as they were involved in dealing with the goods subject to confiscation. The failure to maintain records and provide evidence of utilization constituted a violation of the law, justifying the penalties imposed.

5. The Tribunal rejected the appeals, affirming the Commissioner's decision. Compliance with the provisions of Notification 140/91 and the Customs Act required maintaining records of imported goods' utilization for duty exemption. The appellants' failure to meet this requirement led to the confirmation of duty demand and penalties, as per the legal provisions cited in the judgment.