2001 (2) TMI 210 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the exemption from Customs duty sought by M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited for imported goods for expanding manufacturing capacity for a specific car model YE2 for export, failure to fulfill export obligations, imposition of penalty under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, and the applicability of penalty provisions.

Summary:

1. The appellant, M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, sought exemption from Customs duty for imported goods to expand manufacturing capacity for a specific car model YE2 for export. The exemption was granted subject to fulfilling export obligations over seven years. Failure to meet export targets led to the imposition of penalties under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act.

2. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited failed to fulfill export obligations from 1995-96 to 1998-99, leading to the payment of proportionate duty after each financial year.

3. The Commissioner of Customs found the imported goods liable for confiscation but not available for confiscation, imposing a penalty of Rs. 15.15 crores and an additional penalty under Section 112 of the Act, leading to the appeal.

4. The Tribunal found the basis for the penalty of Rs. 15.15 crores unclear, as the imported goods were installed in the factory and not available for confiscation, questioning the Commissioner's decision.

5. The Tribunal clarified that Sections 111 and 112 of the Act deal with confiscation and penalty separately, emphasizing that penalty under Section 112 cannot substitute confiscation under Section 111.

6. The show cause notice proposed penalties under Section 112(a) for non-compliance with notification conditions and confiscation under Section 111(o). The Tribunal noted the imposition of two separate penalties without citing the legal basis for the higher penalty.

7. The liability for confiscation and penalty is determined by the Customs Act independently of any notification, and failure to meet export obligations does not automatically render goods liable for confiscation.

8. The Tribunal analyzed the conditions of exemption and found that since the duty was paid within the specified period, there was no breach of the exemption conditions, leading to the goods not being liable for confiscation or penalty.

9. The Tribunal considered the lack of evidence showing willful intent to misuse the exemption notification for financial gain, leading to the conclusion that penalties were not justified.

10. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order imposing penalties was set aside, based on the findings regarding the fulfillment of exemption conditions and lack of evidence of willful misconduct.