9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (8) TMI 276 - AT - CustomsEOU diversion of goods to DTA without permission - seizure of goods as well as truck - held that even when the person incharge of the conveyance has knowledge about the nature of the goods transported being unauthorized, the conveyance will be held liable for confiscation even though the owner may not have any knowledge - Hence, once the trucks are liable for confiscation, the redemption fine can be levied even when the goods had already been released on execution of the bond
Issues Involved:
1. Diversion of duty-free raw materials to the local market. 2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. and Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. 3. Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 4. Confiscation and penalties under Sections 111(o), 111(j), 112(a), and 112(b) of the Customs Act, and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. Role and penalties of individual appellants and the owners of the trucks used for diversion. Detailed Analysis: 1. Diversion of Duty-Free Raw Materials: The main appellant, a 100% EOU, was found diverting imported duty-free LLDPE Plastic Granules to the local market. The DRI intercepted two vehicles carrying these granules and conducted detailed investigations, which confirmed the diversion. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods and imposed duties and penalties, holding that the appellants violated the conditions of exemption notifications by diverting the materials instead of using them for manufacturing export goods. 2. Eligibility for Exemption: The appellants argued that the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. and Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. was not properly assessed, and the matter should have been referred to the CBEC for clarification. They cited several case laws to support their argument that the Development Commissioner should have been consulted before issuing the Show Cause Notice. However, the Tribunal found that the diversion of duty-free materials was a clear violation of the exemption notifications, and the appellants were not entitled to the benefits under these notifications. 3. Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act: The appellants contended that Section 28 of the Customs Act and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act were not applicable as there was no non-levy or short levy of duties. They argued that the goods were imported under final assessment and duly bonded in the EOU. The Tribunal, however, upheld the Adjudicating Authority's invocation of the relevant provisions of the exemption notifications and Section 72(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, for demanding duties on the diverted goods. 4. Confiscation and Penalties: The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the imported duty-free plastic granules and imposed a redemption fine. The total quantity of diverted granules was held liable for confiscation under Sections 111(o) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties were imposed on the main appellant and other individuals involved under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalties, noting the voluminous evidence supporting the Revenue's case. 5. Role and Penalties of Individual Appellants: - Chief Executive Officer (CEO): The CEO admitted to the diversion of goods and unauthorized removal of duty-free materials. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the CEO, reducing it from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. - Managing Director: The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Managing Director, finding no direct involvement in the day-to-day transactions. - Director of M/s. Chakrapani Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.: The Tribunal upheld the penalty, reducing it from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, noting the involvement in fabricating documents for transporting the diverted goods. - Owners of the Trucks: The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the trucks used for diverting the goods, reducing the redemption fines from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- each. Conclusion: The Tribunal confirmed the duties and interest demanded by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld the confiscation of the seized materials. The penalties were modified as follows: - Redemption fine on seized goods: Reduced from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. - Redemption fines on trucks: Reduced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- each. - Penalty on the main appellant: Upheld at Rs. 6,00,000/- under Section 112(a) and Rs. 12,00,000/- under Rule 25. - Penalty on the CEO: Reduced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. - Penalty on the Managing Director: Set aside. - Penalty on the Director of M/s. Chakrapani Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.: Reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
|
