2014 (1) TMI 1068 - AT - Customs

Import of Laptops - Benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996 - Lack of evidence of evidence of export - Imposition of penalty - Held that - respondent has not disputed the duty liability and have already discharged the same. Therefore, the question of eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 94/96 or otherwise does not arise - respondent were able to show that these laptops which were imported by them were leased from foreign companies and had been issued to the individual employees. Because these laptops developed some fault when the employees had gone abroad they had left it with the foreign company who had leased the same and subsequently all these laptops were imported as one consignment. Accepting this submission on the basis of records and also taking note of the fact, that even the original adjudicating authority had also taken a view that the serial numbers and identification numbers of the laptops tallied with the ones which were leased by the employer - Decide against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. for imported laptops.
2. Confiscation and penalty related to the imported laptops.
3. Applicability of Circular regarding the appeal based on the amount of duty involved.

Analysis:
1. The respondent imported 36 laptops seeking benefit under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The original authority and the Commissioner (A) denied this benefit due to lack of evidence of export. The Commissioner (A) upheld the denial but set aside the confiscation and penalty. Revenue appealed against this decision.

2. The Tribunal found that the issue did not need further detailed consideration. The respondent did not contest the duty liability and had paid it. The Commissioner (A) determined that the laptops were leased from foreign companies and issued to individual employees. When these laptops developed faults abroad, they were left with the foreign company, subsequently imported as one consignment. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (A)'s decision based on evidence and upheld the setting aside of confiscation and penalty.

3. Another ground for rejecting the appeal was the Circular issued by the Board, stating that no appeal can be filed if the duty amount is less than Rs. 5 lakh. In this case, the duty was less than Rs. 1 lakh, with a redemption fine of Rs. 2.5 lakh and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal noted that these amounts did not exceed Rs. 5 lakh, making the appeal ineligible under the Circular.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the stay application and the appeal, affirming the Commissioner (A)'s decision on the benefit of the Notification, confiscation, and penalty. The appeal was also dismissed based on the Circular's threshold amount for filing appeals.