2012 (10) TMI 592 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - Mis-declaration limitation - goods were declared as Condensate by the appellant - Condensate is classified under CTH 2709, whereas the appellants have proposed classification under CTH 2710 - whether the appellants have suppressed the fact or resorted to mis-declaration with intent to evade duty Held that - In the case of imports, the goods are assessed by the Customs officers, allowed to be discharged out of the vessel under supervision and in this case, the sample was drawn and therefore, to invoke the limitation, there has to be very strong ground to show suppression or mis-declaration with intention to evade duty. No collusion has been alleged - appellants have a good case since the term Condensate itself is a recent term and the quality of Condensate and the specification also vary from source to source - appellants have made out a prima facie case in their favour on limitation - waiver of pre-deposit allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred Show Cause Notice due to limitation period.
2. Classification of imported goods under CTH 27101190 instead of CTH 27101990.
3. Allegations of suppression of facts or mis-declaration by the appellant.
4. Prima facie case for waiver of requirement of dues and stay against recovery during appeal.

Issue 1: Time-barred Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice was time-barred as the last Bill of Entry was filed on 22-6-2009, and the Notice was received on 26-12-2009, exceeding the 6-month period. They contended that there was no suppression of facts or mis-declaration, strengthening their case on limitation grounds.

Issue 2: Classification Discrepancy:
Although the goods were declared as Condensate by the appellant, the proposed classification under CTH 2710 differed from the correct classification under CTH 2709. The mistake in classification was not identified during assessment by Customs officers. The sampling process before discharge from the vessel lacked proper queries, leading to an inaccurate report by the Chemical Examiner. The unavailability of remnant samples during DRI's investigation hindered clarification efforts. The Tribunal acknowledged the technical complexities surrounding terms like Condensate and Light Oil, necessitating detailed examination during the final hearing.

Issue 3: Allegations of Suppression or Mis-declaration:
The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence indicating intentional suppression or mis-declaration by the appellant to evade duty. While detailed investigations and documents were cited by the SDR, the Tribunal emphasized the significance of strong grounds to prove suppression or mis-declaration in cases involving Customs assessment and sample drawing. The lack of collusion allegations further supported the appellant's prima facie case regarding limitation and merit.

Issue 4: Waiver of Dues Requirement and Stay on Recovery:
Recognizing the appellant's establishment of a prima facie case favoring them on limitation grounds, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit requirements for adjudged dues. Additionally, the recovery of dues was stayed during the appeal's pendency, providing temporary relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the time-barred Show Cause Notice, classification discrepancies, absence of evidence for suppression or mis-declaration, and the grant of waiver and stay on recovery, emphasizing the need for detailed technical examination during the final hearing due to the complex nature of the case.