2007 (3) TMI 28 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and Penalty As per adjudicating authority PMV of similar goods declared as Rs.98/- whereas appellant claimed the DEPB at the rate of 14% of the FOB value and not claim for excess credit Commissioner allow the appeal and set aside impugned order

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Calculation of DEPB Credit based on present market value.
2. Application of Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:

1. Calculation of DEPB Credit based on present market value:
The judgment revolves around the calculation of Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) Credit based on the present market value of goods. The adjudicating authority referred to an earlier order where Rs 98.00 per piece was accepted as the present market value of similar goods. The applicants/appellants claimed DEPB at a rate lower than Rs 98.00, which was the accepted market value. The tribunal held that since the present market value was established at Rs 98.00, there was no case for claiming excess DEPB credit against the applicants/appellants. Consequently, the tribunal found no justification for ordering confiscation of goods or imposing penalties, ultimately allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned order.

2. Application of Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The tribunal rejected the application of Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it found no established case of excess credit. By relying on the previous adjudication order where both parties accepted Rs 98.00 as the present market value, the tribunal concluded that confiscation of goods or imposition of penalties was not warranted. This decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting any claim of excess credit, thus leading to the dismissal of such actions under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty:
Due to the absence of any proven excess credit claim and the acceptance of Rs 98.00 as the present market value, the tribunal ruled against the confiscation of goods already exported or the imposition of penalties. The judgment emphasized that since the DEPB Credit claimed was lower than the established market value, there was no basis for punitive actions against the applicants/appellants. As a result, the tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and disposed of all stay petitions related to the case.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the accurate calculation of DEPB Credit, the application of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, and the justification for confiscation and penalties based on established market values and credit claims.