2008 (9) TMI 65 - SC - Customs

Detention order on ground that Video magnetic spools were not made from imported Video Pan cakes demand limitation - Tribunal taking the date of detention as 28-9-1998 instead of 18-9-1998, held that SCN was issued within six months from the date of detention - This appears to be a wrong finding and the same is set aside. The matter has already been remitted by the Tribunal to the Commissioner - We deem it appropriate to remand the matter on the question of limitation also

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of Video Pan Cakes under EOU status
2. Export of Video Magnetic Spools made from Video Pan Cakes
3. Detention and seizure of goods at Mumbai Port
4. Show cause notice for confiscation and penalty
5. Appeal before Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal

Issue 1: Import of Video Pan Cakes under EOU status
The appellant, a 100% EOU, imported Video Pan Cakes under specific customs notifications. Subsequently, Video Magnetic Spools were made from these imported Pan Cakes for export to Singapore. The Central Excise Officer inspected the consignment and allowed its export after verifying compliance with declarations.

Issue 2: Export of Video Magnetic Spools made from Video Pan Cakes
Upon reaching Mumbai Port, the consignment faced issues as Customs Officers concluded that the exported Video Magnetic Spools were not made from the imported Video Pan Cakes. This led to the detention and subsequent seizure of the goods, followed by a show cause notice for confiscation and duty demand.

Issue 3: Detention and seizure of goods at Mumbai Port
Customs Officers at Mumbai Port prevented the loading of the consignment due to discrepancies in the exported goods. Samples were drawn, and it was determined that the Video Magnetic Spools did not match the imported Video Pan Cakes, resulting in the detention and seizure of the goods.

Issue 4: Show cause notice for confiscation and penalty
A show cause notice was issued under the Customs Act for the confiscation of the Video Magnetic Tapes and the imposition of a penalty. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand, ordered confiscation, and imposed penalties on the firm and the proprietor.

Issue 5: Appeal before Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal
The appellant challenged the order-in-original before the Tribunal, contesting jurisdiction, merits, and limitation. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for cross-examination. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of limitation, setting aside the findings and directing a fresh decision by the Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing the Commissioner to reevaluate the case on merits, jurisdiction, and limitation, adhering to relevant legal provisions and judgments. The Court emphasized the need for a timely resolution of the case due to its age, instructing the Commissioner to dispose of the matter within four months.