2009 (5) TMI 708 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 40/06-Cus. for polyester fabrics under import.
2. Confiscation and penalty imposed on furniture import due to alleged misdeclaration.
3. Determination of Retail Sale Price (RSP) and excess quantity in light fittings import.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of exemption under Notification No. 40/06-Cus. for polyester fabrics under import:
The appellant, M/s. Yashavi Enterprises, imported polyester fabrics under the Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) scheme seeking exemption under Notification No. 40/06-Cus. The Commissioner alleged misdeclaration and sought duty payment of Rs. 16,33,183. However, the Tribunal found that the imported fabrics were covered by DFIA and eligible for the exemption, as per the relevant provisions. Consequently, the demand for duty and confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act were deemed unsustainable, leading to the vacating of the confiscation and penalty imposed on M/s. Yashavi.

Issue 2: Confiscation and penalty imposed on furniture import due to alleged misdeclaration:
Regarding the import of furniture, the assessable value was enhanced by the authorities, and a fine and penalty were imposed on M/s. Yashavi for alleged misdeclaration. The Tribunal observed that the enhancement of value lacked proper notice to the importer and that there was no misdeclaration or violation of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). Consequently, the fine and penalty were vacated as there was no justification for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act.

Issue 3: Determination of Retail Sale Price (RSP) and excess quantity in light fittings import:
In the case of light fittings import, discrepancies were noted in the declared RSP and quantity of items. The Tribunal upheld the determination of RSP for certain items based on market enquiries and accepted revisions made during the proceedings. Additionally, excess quantities were found, leading to a demand for duty. The Tribunal found the quantities were accurately ascertained and upheld the order regarding misdeclaration, confiscation under Section 111(m) and 111(l), and penalties. However, the fine and penalty amounts were reduced due to the goods not being confiscable under Section 111(d).

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed each issue individually, considering the legal provisions and evidence presented, ultimately making decisions based on the merits of each case. The appeal of M/s. Yashavi Enterprises was disposed of with detailed reasoning provided for each aspect of the judgment.