1985 (3) TMI 282 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Whether Automatic Casting Machine, Boring Machine, Matrix Drying Units, and Milling Machine deserve benefit of concessional assessment under Notification No. 114-Cus., dated 19-6-80 as amended, and whether the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the appellants is legal and justified.

Detailed Analysis:

Automatic Casting Machine, Boring Machine, Matrix Drying Units, and Milling Machine Eligibility for Concessional Assessment:
The appellants, publishers of a Hindi daily newspaper, imported a 3-Unit Volga Rotary Press along with various machines. The Collector of Customs reviewed the case and found that while the press was eligible for concessional assessment, the other machines were not. The appellants argued that all machines were integral parts of the press and thus eligible for the concession. However, the Tribunal determined that the disputed machines were accessories and not integral components of the press. The notification specifying certain machines for concession further supported this finding. Consequently, the concession was denied for all machines except the Automatic Casting Machine, as it was specifically mentioned in the notification. The order of the Collector was modified accordingly.

Imposition of Penalty:
The Collector had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants for alleged mis-statement in their declaration to evade customs duty. The appellants presented all relevant documents to the lower authorities, who verified and granted the concession. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of wilful mis-declaration by the appellants, and therefore, the penalty was deemed unjustified. The imposition of the penalty was set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the concession under Notification No. 114-Cus., dated 19-6-80 for the Automatic Casting Machine. The denial of concession for other machines was upheld. Additionally, the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the appellants was set aside. The judgment provided consequential relief to the appellants based on the findings.