9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of conditions for exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. 2. Denial of benefit and confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Compliance with conditions for exemption as per Supreme Court directions. Interpretation of conditions for exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.: The appellants imported hospital equipment under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., seeking exemption subject to specified conditions. The Customs Department initiated proceedings alleging non-fulfillment of conditions. The appellants argued compliance and submitted supporting certificates. The Commissioner's order denied benefits, ordered confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, imposed a penalty under Section 112(a), and mentioned entitlement to benefits under Notification 65/88-Cus. Denial of benefit and confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962: The Commissioner relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing continuous fulfillment of conditions for exemption under Notification 64/88-Cus. The Commissioner rejected appellant's arguments, disregarded a report by Shri G. Anantharaman, and found non-compliance with conditions. However, the Commissioner's reliance on Shri G. Anantharaman's report without allowing cross-examination was deemed inappropriate. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962: The Commissioner's order imposed penalties and demanded duty payment based on the alleged non-compliance with conditions for exemption. However, the Apex Court's directions emphasized strict enforcement of conditions and actions upon complaints of non-compliance, which the Customs Department failed to demonstrate in this case. The order did not reflect efforts to enforce conditions as required by the Supreme Court's directives. Compliance with conditions for exemption as per Supreme Court directions: The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remitted the matter back for ensuring enforcement of the Supreme Court directions regarding strict compliance with exemption conditions. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of efforts to enforce conditions upon complaints of non-compliance before confirming duties, penalties, or confiscation. Failure to comply with the Supreme Court's directives rendered the liabilities for duty, penalty, and confiscation unsustainable until the principles of natural justice were adhered to. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed for remand after overturning the impugned order, emphasizing the enforcement of Supreme Court directions for compliance with exemption conditions before confirming liabilities. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner for ensuring strict enforcement of conditions as per the Supreme Court's directives.
|
