9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Alleged non-compliance with EPCG Scheme export terms 2. Allegations of not declaring technical know-how fees in assessable value 3. Imposition of penalty under Section 114(A) 4. Denial of exemption Notification No. 160/92 5. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(o) and 111(m) 6. Appeal grounds challenging the impugned order 7. Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act 8. Consideration of service charges in assessable value 9. Liability for interest charges 10. Benefit of concessional rate of duty on imported machinery 11. Re-computation of duty demands 12. Confiscation of goods for non-fulfillment of export obligation 13. Re-examination of demands under Section 125 14. Re-adjudication of penalty imposition under Section 114A 15. Entitlement to benefits under Notifications 59/87-Cus. and 151/92-Cus. 16. Consideration of bank guarantee with DGFT Analysis: The appeal stemmed from alleged non-compliance with the EPCG Scheme export terms, specifically regarding the export of Maleic anhydride. The appellants were accused of exporting goods under the DEEC Scheme without mentioning the EPCG Scheme export obligation. Additionally, they were charged with not adding technical know-how fees to the assessable value, leading to a show cause notice under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act. However, the Chief Commissioner proceeded to confirm demands under Section 28, imposing a penalty and denying exemption benefits. The grounds raised by the appellants included the non-invocation of Section 28, challenges to penalty imposition, and arguments regarding technical know-how fees. They cited relevant judgments to support their contentions, seeking a re-determination of the matter due to alleged non-consideration of crucial points by the Chief Commissioner. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Chief Commissioner's approach, emphasizing the need for a re-examination of various aspects. This included the inclusion of service charges in the assessable value, the applicability of Section 114(A) penalty, and the entitlement to concessional duty rates on imported machinery under specific notifications. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for thorough reconsideration, effective hearing of the appellants' arguments, and a fresh determination of the issues at hand. The decision highlighted the importance of addressing all raised points comprehensively and ensuring a fair adjudication process.
|
