9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation and application of Notification No. 61/93-Cus. for exemption of Customs duty on imported capital goods. 2. Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 126/94-Cus. for duty liability on imported goods. 3. Validity of permission granted by Development Commissioner for import of capital goods by Export-Oriented Unit. 4. Provisional assessments and liability for duty payment. 5. Imposition of penalty on Appellant No. 1 for non-compliance with intended purpose of imported goods. Analysis: 1. The Appellate Tribunal considered appeals against a Customs duty demand and penalty imposed on Appellants for importing capital goods. The Appellants claimed benefit under Notification No. 61/93-Cus., stating goods imported met the Notification requirements, entitling duty exemption. However, the Departmental Representative argued the Notification conditions were not fulfilled, as the goods did not match the specified description and lacked the necessary Certificate from a designated officer. 2. The Tribunal noted that the Appellants, a 100% Export-Oriented Unit, imported goods for a project not implemented, violating conditions of Notification No. 126/94-Cus. The failure to comply rendered them liable for duty payment on the imported goods. Despite Appellants' assertion of eligibility for Notification No. 61/93, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand due to non-compliance with Notification conditions, including the absence of the required Certificate. 3. The Development Commissioner's permission for capital goods import by the Export-Oriented Unit was contested. The Appellants argued equivalence to the Certificate specified in the Notification, but the Tribunal rejected this claim, emphasizing the distinct requirements of the Notification for duty exemption. The Tribunal found the permission insufficient to meet the Notification criteria, reinforcing the duty liability on the Appellants. 4. Regarding provisional assessments, the Appellants claimed assessments were provisional due to executing a B16 bond. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of provisional assessments in the submitted Bills of Entry, dismissing this argument and upholding the duty demand as confirmed in the impugned order. 5. The Tribunal ruled on penalty imposition, holding Appellant No. 1 accountable for importing goods not used for the intended purpose. While penalty equivalent to the duty amount was deemed excessive, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was considered appropriate. The penalty on Appellant No. 2 was set aside, concluding the appeals with the modified penalty for Appellant No. 1 and dismissal of penalty for Appellant No. 2 based on the case circumstances.
|
