2009 (12) TMI 812 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notifications No. 96/03-Cus, 52/03-Cus, and 22/03-C.E.
2. Demand of duty under Section 72(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Liability for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

1. Eligibility for Exemption:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority's decision that the goods were not entitled to exemption under Notifications No. 96/03-Cus, 52/03-Cus, and 22/03-C.E. The original authority found that the goods were "somewhat akin" to prototype/technical samples, which are eligible for exemption. The assessment at the time of import, supported by an essentiality certificate, could not be revised without due process. The impugned goods were not improperly removed as the warehousing period had not expired, and the proper officer had not denied an extension.

2. Demand of Duty under Section 72(a):
The original authority demanded duty under Section 72(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, for goods not found during verification. However, the demand under Section 72(a) was not sustainable as there was no evidence of physical removal from the warehouse. The goods were dismantled for research and evaluation, not removed from the warehouse.

3. Liability for Confiscation under Section 111(o):
The Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority found the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Act. However, the impugned order did not indicate any condition not fulfilled for the goods to incur liability to confiscation. The goods were used for the manufacture of export goods, and there was no evidence of dishonest or contumacious conduct by the appellant.

4. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(a):
The penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act was also not sustainable. The appellant had fulfilled the NFE requirements under the Exim Policy and had not violated any conditions. The penalty was imposed without evidence of removal from the warehouse or any dishonest conduct.

Conclusion:
The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals filed by M/s. American Power Conversion Ltd. were allowed. The demand of duty, liability for confiscation, and imposition of penalty were not sustainable due to lack of evidence and fulfillment of conditions for exemption.