2009 (3) TMI 825 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The case involves the destruction of imported goods by a 100% EOU without payment of duty, the failure to follow prescribed procedures for destruction, and the imposition of duty and penalty by the department.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Destruction of Imported Goods without Payment of Duty
The appellants, a 100% EOU, imported Tin Plates without duty payment. They sought permission to destroy the damaged goods, but the department claimed they did not provide sufficient details for destruction. The department initiated proceedings resulting in the demand of duty and penalty on the appellant.

Issue 2: Failure to Follow Prescribed Procedures for Destruction
The Adjudicating Authority upheld the order, stating that the appellant did not follow the prescribed procedure under law for destruction of damaged goods for remission of duty. The Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner must be satisfied that the goods were lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, which was not proven in this case.

Issue 3: Appeal Against the Order
The appellant challenged the order, arguing that they consistently informed the department about the damaged goods and sought permission for destruction. Despite their efforts, they were issued a show cause notice and faced duty demand and penalty. The appellant believed they were acting in good faith and that destruction within the EOU did not require permission.

Judgment Summary:
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had diligently informed the revenue authorities about the damaged goods and sought permission for destruction. The appellant had followed up consistently, but no response was received from the revenue authorities. The Tribunal noted that the destruction of goods within the customs bonded warehouse or outside the unit by informing the customs authorities had been upheld in previous cases. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not at fault for destroying the goods before verification by jurisdictional authorities. The demand of duty and penalty was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.