2000 (8) TMI 179 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability under the Customs Act, 1962
2. Advance Licence Scheme and duty free clearances
3. Allegations of violation of notification conditions and EXIM Policy
4. Compliance with Amnesty Scheme and reversal of Modvat credit
5. Discrepancy in Bill of Entry numbers
6. Entitlement to duty exemption and penalty imposition
7. Applicability of interest and statutory penalty provisions

Analysis:

1. Duty liability under the Customs Act, 1962:
The appeal arose from an order confirming duty liability, interest, and penalty on the appellants under the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs alleged duty liability amounting to Rs. 52,41,600.00, interest at 24% per annum under Section 28AA, and a penalty equal to the duty amount under Section 114A.

2. Advance Licence Scheme and duty free clearances:
The matter involved the import of various consignments by the appellants under the Advance Licence Scheme and duty free clearances of imported goods under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-92.

3. Allegations of violation of notification conditions and EXIM Policy:
The Department alleged that the appellants were not entitled to duty free imports under the notification due to non-compliance with conditions. The Department also alleged violations of the Hand Book Procedures of EXIM Policy - 1992-1997.

4. Compliance with Amnesty Scheme and reversal of Modvat credit:
The appellants contended that they had reversed the Modvat credit and rectified errors before the relevant Amnesty Scheme deadline. However, the Commissioner found discrepancies in the reversal amount and timing, leading to denial of benefits under the Amnesty Scheme.

5. Discrepancy in Bill of Entry numbers:
The appellants argued that the proceedings were void due to a discrepancy in the Bill of Entry numbers. However, the Tribunal found the error to be clerical and not affecting the substance of the case.

6. Entitlement to duty exemption and penalty imposition:
The appellants claimed entitlement to duty exemption under a bona fide belief, citing a Supreme Court decision and the applicability of the Amnesty Scheme. They argued against the imposition of duty and penalty, emphasizing their compliance efforts.

7. Applicability of interest and statutory penalty provisions:
The Tribunal noted that the provisions for interest and statutory penalty were introduced after the period in dispute. Consequently, the part of the order confirming these aspects was set aside, and the appeal was allowed to that extent.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues and arguments presented in the legal judgment, addressing each aspect of the case in detail and highlighting the Tribunal's findings and conclusions.