2007 (1) TMI 14 - AT - Customs

Demand and Penalty - Deposited good were not clear under bond period and its authorities disposed the goods without prior permission of the appellant and demand differential duty - After considering all the fact the authority made decision in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty and interest demand on imported goods not cleared during Bond period.
2. Disposal of goods by custodian without notice to importer.
3. Liability of importer for duty and interest after goods disposed of.
4. Applicability of duty demand when goods auctioned during pendency of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the demand of duty and interest on imported goods that were not cleared during the Bond period. The importer had deposited the goods in a warehouse under Bond, which expired in 1989. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs demanded a sum of Rs. 2,53,740/- plus interest in 1998. The appellant contested this demand, stating they had not received the notice and appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order and directed to consider the abandonment application appropriately.

2. The goods were disposed of by the custodian via public auction in 2001 for Rs. 1,11,000/-, while the duty involved was Rs. 2,53,740/- plus interest. The department demanded the payment of differential duties and other dues amounting to Rs. 6,97,993/-. The appellant argued that since the goods were disposed of and not released to them, the demand for duty and interest should not apply. They contended that if they had opted for abandonment of the goods before the Bond period expiry, no duty would be demandable.

3. The learned advocate for the appellants emphasized that the disposal of goods during the pendency of the appeal was unjust, and the department should not demand duty when the goods were auctioned without their notice. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) argued that when the goods are not cleared and the Bond period expires, it is deemed that the goods have been cleared by the importer, supporting the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. The Tribunal noted the peculiar circumstances of the case, where the goods were disposed of without the importer's involvement. The importer had filed an appeal against the duty demand in 1998, and it would be unfair to fault them for the disposal of goods without proper notice. Considering the unique facts and the unavailability of the goods, the Tribunal accepted the prayer for waiver from the demand of duty and interest. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the importer in this case.