2010 (2) TMI 1004 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of duty, fine, and penalties in the case of breach of conditions of Notification No. 53/97 regarding duty-free importation of goods by an Export Oriented Unit (EOU).

Analysis:

1. Duty on Capital Goods and Raw Materials:
The case involved the duty demand on capital goods and raw materials imported by the EOU under the EOU scheme. The EOU failed to meet its export obligations within the stipulated time frame, leading to a show-cause notice for duty recovery, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the duty demand, ordered confiscation of capital goods, and imposed penalties. The Tribunal noted that the EOU could claim departmental custody of confiscated capital goods, supporting waiver of pre-deposit for duty demanded on such goods. Regarding raw materials, exports worth Rs. 7.45 crores were made out of raw materials worth Rs. 5.84 crores. As the department did not allege any diversion of raw materials and the EOU claimed full utilization in manufacturing finished goods, the Tribunal inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit for duty on raw materials as well.

2. Penalties Imposed:
The penalties imposed on the appellants were contested on the grounds of lack of specific findings indicating deliberate actions rendering goods liable to confiscation. The Commissioner imposed penalties based on the appellants' direct involvement in duty-free importation, breaching post-importation conditions. While mens rea was not required for imposing penalties due to breach of notification conditions, the penalties of Rs. 6 crores on the EOU and Rs. 5 crores each on the Directors were considered harsh. Financial hardships were pleaded, citing the company's annual report and BIFR proceedings. The Tribunal directed the EOU to pre-deposit Rs. 25 lakhs within a specified period but granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for penalties imposed on the Directors due to the lack of specific findings against them.

This judgment addresses the issues of duty demands on capital goods and raw materials, penalties imposed on the appellants, and the considerations for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery based on the specific circumstances and arguments presented in the case.