2011 (5) TMI 2 - SC - Customs

Confiscation - Classification - Misdeclaration - According to the appellant, no such order could have been passed for setting aside the personal penalties imposed upon the persons by the Commissioner - So far the issue with regard to the classification is concerned, the matter has been remitted back and is to be considered by the Tribunal afresh in accordance with law and in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal - So far the issue with regard to imposition of personal penalties is concerned, the Tribunal has given its reasons for setting aside the said order - So far the charge of mis-declaration as regards the number of machines is concerned, the said issue also stands remanded to the original adjudicating authority for quantification of payment of duty on the said machines after deciding the classification Since the findings and the conclusions are based on cogent and valid reasons - The Civil Appeals are disposed of

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods for violation of ITC Policy
2. Short levy due to change in classification
3. Mis-declaration of imported machines
4. Quantum of personal penalty
5. Appeal against personal penalties imposed

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the judgment of CEGAT, Kolkata regarding the confiscation of goods, specifically a Philips Tomoscan CX head Scanner (1987 Model), for violating the ITC Policy. The majority opinion upheld the confiscation but provided an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.5,00,000. The appellant contested the setting aside of personal penalties imposed on certain individuals by the Commissioner, arguing that such orders should not have been passed. The Supreme Court noted that the confiscation order was upheld, and the redemption fine had been paid. As no appeal was made regarding the confiscation issue, it was considered final and binding, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's grievance in this regard.

2. The dispute over the short levy, resulting from a change in classification from Sub-heading 9022.14 to 9022.12, was set aside by the majority opinion. The matter was to be reconsidered by the Tribunal following legal procedures and the directions provided. The Supreme Court acknowledged the remittance of this issue back to the Tribunal for proper adjudication in accordance with the law and the Tribunal's directives.

3. Concerning the mis-declaration of the number of machines imported by M/s. Tanya Diagnostic Centre, the charge was upheld, and the case was referred back to the original adjudicating authority for the quantification of duty payment on the imported machines after determining their classification. The Supreme Court recognized the remand of this issue for further assessment by the adjudicating authority, ensuring proper determination of the duty payment based on the correct classification of the imported machines.

4. The issue of determining the quantum of personal penalty to be imposed on M/s. Tanya Diagnostic Centre and Dr. Kamal Kr. Dutta was remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration. The Supreme Court acknowledged the remand of this issue for the Commissioner's decision on the appropriate personal penalties, ensuring a fair and lawful imposition based on valid reasons and conclusions.

5. Appeals by individuals such as Shri Arun Saini, Smt. Manjusha Dutta, Shri Pratik Kr. Sen, Shri Himanshu Bhusan Paul, and Shri Pinto Bose, against personal penalties imposed on them were allowed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court, noting the cogent and valid reasons provided by the Tribunal for setting aside these penalties, declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's judgment, dismissing the appellant's challenge against the setting aside of personal penalties, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →