2003 (11) TMI 554 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of liability to confiscation of unglazed tiles under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) on the importer and other involved parties.
3. Levy of anti-dumping duty and Customs duty on imports made by a unit in the Special Economic Zone at Kandla.
4. Interpretation of Section 9A(2A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Notification No. 50/2002.
5. Justification of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 for imports made by a unit in the Free Trade Zone.
6. Granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalties and stay of recovery pending final decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Commissioner's order determining the liability to confiscation of unglazed tiles under the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner had offered redemption of the tiles with a fine and imposed penalties under Section 112(a) on the importer and other parties involved. The issue revolved around the misdeclaration of goods to evade duty, especially concerning the imports made by a unit in the Free Trade Zone at Kandla.

2. The primary contention was regarding the levy of anti-dumping duty and Customs duty on the imports. The appellant's advocate cited Section 9A(2A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Notification No. 50/2002 to argue against the imposition of duty on imports made by a unit in the Free Trade Zone. Conversely, the JDR argued that the Commissioner rightfully upheld the duty liability due to misdeclaration and an organized plan to import goods under the Free Trade Zone's name.

3. The advocate for the appellants referenced a previous case to support the argument that penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, were not warranted for imports made by a unit in the Free Trade Zone. The decision in the case of M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. was highlighted to emphasize that penalties should not apply to such imports, similar to those made by a unit in a 100% Export Oriented Unit.

4. After considering the submissions and issues involved, the Tribunal found merit in granting a full waiver of pre-deposit of penalties as requested in the stay applications. Consequently, the recovery of the imposed penalties was stayed pending the final decision in the appeals. An oral request for an earlier hearing was also granted due to the pending clearance of goods, with a specific date set for the hearing to expedite the process.