9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess raw materials imported duty-free. 2. Denial of exemption claimed under specific notifications. 3. Demand for customs duty foregone and recovery with interest. 4. Imposition of penalties on the company and individuals. 5. Contention regarding mis-declaration and misrepresentation in license applications. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns five stay petitions arising from a common Order-in-Original by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, regarding the confiscation of excess raw materials, white/yellow phosphorus, valued at Rs. 13,93,77,356 imported duty-free by inflating input values. The Commissioner held the goods liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. Additionally, penalties were imposed on the company and individuals under Sections 112(a) and (b) and/or 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The exemption claimed under specific notifications for excess imports made against 20 Value Based Advance Licences was denied. The judgment demanded the recovery of customs duty foregone amounting to Rs. 10,44,62,749, with applicable interest under relevant sections of the Customs Act, invoking Bonds/LUT executed by the company and under Sections 28 and 143A of the Act. 3. Penalties were imposed on the company and individuals, including the Managing Director and other officials, under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties ranged from Rs. 10,00,000 to Rs. 50,00,000 based on individual roles and responsibilities within the company. 4. The applicants contended that there was no mis-declaration or misrepresentation in their license applications for Value Based Advance Licences. They argued that they validly availed exemptions and complied with licensing conditions. They relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support their case, emphasizing that the licensing authorities had not taken any action against them for misrepresentation. 5. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the applicants' case aligned with the Supreme Court judgment cited. It emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities was limited to verifying compliance with licensing conditions, which were found to be met. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a waiver of the pre-deposit of duty and penalties pending appeal disposal, directing the case for regular hearing due to the significant revenue involved. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of confiscation, denial of exemption, duty recovery, penalties, and the contention regarding mis-declaration and misrepresentation, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai.
|
