2015 (9) TMI 1134 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - levy of anti-dumping duty (ADD) - Held that - As directed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has enhanced the bank guarantee of ₹ 11,84,000/- and the appellant produced copy of T.R. 6 challan. We also take into account the B/E No.5809203 dt. 23.1.2003 has not yet been cleared and is still under the Customs custody and the ADE involved is ₹ 23,91,562/-. Taking into account the live consignment which is still pending with the Customs the balance demand comes to approx. ₹ 80 lakhs against which by way of encashment of bank guarantee and also by payment of ₹ 20 lakhs appellants paid ₹ 31,84,000/. Taking into consideration the payments made, we direct the appellant No.1 to pre-deposit further amount of ₹ 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs only) within 6 weeks. The payment of ₹ 31,84,000/- amount already paid by the appellants to be adjusted towards predeposit. Upon deposit of the said amount, predeposit of balance duty and penalty in respect of the appellant No.1 and predeposit of penalty amount on the appellants No.2 & 3 shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during pendency of the appeal. - partial Stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Bank guarantee encashment, anti-dumping duty demand, classification of imported goods, exemption notification applicability, personal penalty on co-noticees.

Bank Guarantee Encashment:
The Tribunal directed the Revenue to encash the bank guarantee and produce the receipt for stay applications consideration. The appellant submitted proof of encashment of bank guarantee and payment towards the duty demand. The Tribunal noted the enhanced bank guarantee and pending consignment under Customs custody, requiring a further pre-deposit of a specified amount within a set timeframe.

Anti-Dumping Duty Demand:
The appellant contested the ADD demand, highlighting discrepancies in classification between Ascorbyl Polyphosphate and Ascorbic Acid. They argued that the goods were correctly declared and used for specific purposes, emphasizing past consignments clearance and usage. The Tribunal considered the amount already paid by the appellant and directed a specific pre-deposit amount, adjusting the previous payment towards the total demand.

Classification of Imported Goods:
Issues arose regarding the classification of imported items like "Amprolium HCL," "Lincomycin 11% powder feed grade," and "Tiamulin Hydrogen Fumarate 20% granules feed grade." The appellant asserted that these items fell under specific exemption notifications and were for feed preparation, not medicinal use. Discrepancies in classification by the Revenue were highlighted, emphasizing the intended usage and purity levels of the imported goods.

Exemption Notification Applicability:
The appellant argued for the applicability of exemption notifications for certain imported items, citing specific entries in the notification lists. They contended that the goods were covered under the exemptions due to their purity levels, intended usage, and compliance with the listed criteria. The Tribunal considered these arguments while directing the pre-deposit amount and waiving penalties for specific appellants upon compliance.

Personal Penalty on Co-Noticees:
Regarding personal penalties on co-noticees who were directors of the company, the appellant claimed that their roles were not implicated in any contravention of the Customs Act. The Tribunal did not address this issue explicitly in the summarized judgment, focusing more on the duty demands, pre-deposit requirements, and exemption notification applicability.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the complexities involved in the case, including bank guarantee encashment, duty demands, classification disputes, exemption notifications, and personal penalties on co-noticees. The Tribunal's decision reflected a balance between the appellant's submissions, the Revenue's contentions, and the legal provisions governing customs duties and penalties.