2009 (8) TMI 890 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Central Tucking Units for concessional rate of duty u/s Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.
2. Correct valuation of second-hand Central Tucking Units.
3. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty.

Summary:

Issue 1: Eligibility for Concessional Duty
The Tribunal examined whether Central Tucking Units qualify as spare parts of shuttleless looms, thereby being eligible for a concessional rate of duty u/s Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Tribunal found that the Central Tucking Units are essential for regulating the width of the fabric and are integral to the functioning of the shuttleless looms. The Textile Commissioner's letter dated 17-2-05 confirmed that Tucking Units are spare parts of shuttleless weaving machines. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that Central Tucking Units are eligible for the concessional rate of duty.

Issue 2: Correct Valuation
The Tribunal addressed the valuation of the second-hand Central Tucking Units. The Department had adopted a value of 1100 EURO per piece based on the initial statement of Shri Lalit Gulati and a letter from M/s. Sultex (India) Pvt. Ltd. However, Shri Lalit Gulati later retracted his statement, and evidence showed that similar units were imported at 200 U.S. $ per piece. The Tribunal decided that a fair value would be 400 EURO per piece, based on the retracted statement and market inquiry.

Issue 3: Quantum of Redemption Fine and Penalty
Based on the revised valuation and eligibility for concessional duty, the Tribunal ordered:
- The ninety-three second-hand Central Tucking Units to be valued at 400 EURO per piece for duty assessment.
- The benefit of concessional rate under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. to be applied, and duty re-determined accordingly.
- The redemption fine in lieu of confiscation to be reduced to Rs. 4,00,000/-.
- The penalty u/s 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant company and Shri Lalit Gulati to be reduced to Rs. 1,50,000/- each.

The Commissioner was directed to re-quantify the duty demand based on these directions. The impugned order was modified accordingly. (Pronounced in open court on 4-8-2009)