2000 (10) TMI 73 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Vagueness of allegations in the show cause notice.
2. Action initiated against the noticees regarding foreign currency.
3. Import of duplicate CD ROMs and over-valuation.
4. Mention of specific clause of Section 112 in the show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The appellant raised concerns about the vagueness of the allegations in the show cause notice, claiming they were not connected to the import of the disputed CD ROMs and were not liable for any penalty. However, the Tribunal found that the notice provided sufficient details regarding the appellant's involvement as a Director of the company importing goods at inflated rates. The appellant's defense was considered ineffective, and the contention of vagueness was overruled.

2. The appellant argued that the action against them regarding foreign currency should have been under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, not the Customs Act. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the main issue was the over-valuation of imported goods, leading to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The flow of foreign currency was a consequence of the violation and did not invalidate the Customs Act proceedings.

3. The appellant claimed that the imported CD ROMs were duplicate and not genuine, suggesting that the company should have taken copyright or patent action instead of facing Customs penalties. However, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, stating that the evidence proved the CD ROMs were not genuine and over-valued, justifying confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act.

4. The appellant contended that the show cause notice did not specify the specific clause of Section 112 for penalty imposition, which was deemed fatal. The Tribunal reviewed relevant case law and determined that the notice adequately informed the noticees of the violations under Section 111(m) and the potential penalty under Section 112(a). The absence of specific mention of the clause in the notice did not invalidate the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.

Overall, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant for their involvement in the import of goods at inflated values, despite the appellant's arguments regarding the notice's clarity and the specific clause of Section 112.