2018 (1) TMI 1449 - Commission - Customs

Imposition of penalty - Evasion of Customs duty - violation of post import condition imposed in Explanation 2 vide Notification No. 24/2008-Cus., dated 1-3-2008 in Notification No. 84/97-Cus., dated 11-11-1997 , as amended - import of Electronic Sensor Paver Model Super 1800 with AB600-2 TV Screed - Held that - The Bench observes that the applicant has made true and full disclosures of their liabilities, deposited the same and is therefore inclined to settle the case of applicant under Section 127C(5) of the Act. This order shall be void and immunities withdrawn if the Bench finds, at any point of time, that the applicants had concealed any particular material to the Settlement or had given false evidence or had obtained this Order by fraud or mis-representation of facts.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of post-import conditions under Notification No. 84/97-Cus., dated 11-11-1997 as amended by Notification No. 24/2008-Cus., dated 1-3-2008.
2. Seizure and confiscation of the imported 'Electronic Sensor Paver Model Super 1800 with AB600-2 TV Screed'.
3. Demand for differential Customs duty and interest.
4. Imposition of penalty on the applicant and co-applicant.
5. Immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Post-Import Conditions:
The applicant imported an 'Electronic Sensor Paver Model Super 1800 with AB600-2 TV Screed' under Bill of Entry No. 3577530, dated 7-12-2012, claiming exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus., dated 11-11-1997. This notification was amended by Notification No. 24/2008-Cus., dated 1-3-2008, which clarified that the benefit of exemption was available only if the goods were not withdrawn from the project site. The applicant admitted to withdrawing the machine from the project site in May 2016, thus violating the conditions for exemption and making them liable to pay the Customs duty.

2. Seizure and Confiscation:
During the investigation, the Paver machine was found working at a different project site and was seized on 9-2-2017. The machine, valued at ?1,19,02,557/-, was seized under the reasonable belief that the applicant had contravened the provisions of the notification. The Bench ordered the confiscation of the machine but allowed the applicant to redeem it on payment of a fine of ?3,50,000/-.

3. Demand for Differential Customs Duty and Interest:
The applicant was called upon to show cause why the seized machine should not be confiscated and the duty evaded amounting to ?28,20,205/- should not be demanded. The applicant admitted and paid the entire Customs duty liability along with interest amounting to ?28,10,492/-. The Bench ordered the appropriation of the amounts paid towards the settled duty liability and interest.

4. Imposition of Penalty:
The Bench imposed a penalty of ?1,40,000/- on the applicant and ?14,000/- on the co-applicant. The applicant and co-applicant were granted immunity from penalty in excess of these amounts, provided they comply with the payment within the specified time frame.

5. Immunity from Prosecution:
Subject to the payment of duty, interest, penalty, and fine within 30 days of the receipt of the order, the Bench granted immunity to the applicant and co-applicant from prosecution under the Customs Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The immunities granted are subject to the conditions specified under Sections 127H(1), 127H(2), and 127H(3) of the Act. If the applicants fail to comply with the conditions or are found to have concealed any material particulars or given false evidence, the immunities can be withdrawn.

Conclusion:
The Bench settled the case under Section 127C(5) of the Act, with the applicant and co-applicant required to pay the differential Customs duty, interest, fine, and penalties as specified. The order emphasized the conditions under which the immunities were granted and the consequences of non-compliance or misrepresentation.