9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Alleged mis-declaration of imported goods as printing paper instead of newsprint. 2. Short levy of customs duty amounting to approximately Rs. 32 lakhs. 3. Imposition of penalties on the appellant. 4. Dispute settlement between parties under a decree issued by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 5. Cancellation of provisional assessment bonds and the invocation of Section 28A of the Customs Act. 6. Suppression of test reports by the customs authorities. 7. Granting of waiver of pre-deposits. 8. Allowance of stay application. Analysis: 1. The appellant imported 26 consignments of paper, claiming them as printing paper and seeking clearance in 1997-98. However, a subsequent show cause notice (SCN) in 2002 alleged that the goods were actually newsprint, leading to a short levy of customs duty of around Rs. 32 lakhs. The appellant contested this allegation, but an ex parte order in 2006 confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, prompting the present appeal and stay application against the order. 2. The appellant raised various contentions against the demand and penalties, arguing that the proceedings were not sustainable due to a prior suit filed in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which was decreed in favor of the appellant. The decree required the Customs authorities to pay a substantial sum to the appellant, settling the dispute about the nature of the imported goods. The appellant contended that it was not permissible for the customs authorities to re-open this issue through a show cause notice. 3. Another contention was based on the cancellation of provisional assessment bonds after finding that the goods were as declared. The appellant argued that invoking the proviso to Section 28A of the Customs Act alleging mis-declaration was unjustified, especially since test reports from the Customs Chemical Laboratory confirmed the consignments as printing paper. The appellant accused the revenue of suppressing these reports and withholding them from the proceedings to secure a confirmation of the demand. 4. The tribunal found that the dispute had already been adjudicated in the Hon'ble High Court, and the decree issued was binding on both parties. Additionally, since the provisional assessments were finalized based on tests by the Customs Laboratory, there was no justification for invoking an extended period merely due to the receipt of another report from the Central Pulp and Paper Institute. Consequently, the tribunal deemed it appropriate to grant a waiver of pre-deposits and allowed the stay application, with the appeal to be listed for a hearing in due course.
|
