9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods due to misdeclaration of width in imported consignment. 2. Competency of the adjudicating authority in deciding the case. 3. Imposition of penalty and demand for differential customs duty. 4. Legal objections raised by the appellant regarding the demand of duty. Analysis: Issue 1: Confiscation of goods due to misdeclaration The importers declared the width of polyester bonded waddings as 110 cms in the advance license, but the actual width was 112 cms. The Deputy Collector confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, and later, the Additional Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 since the goods were already cleared. The appellants argued that the width discrepancy was negligible, around 2%, and due to the expandable nature of the material. The tribunal noted that the weight of the material remained consistent, and the goods were intended for re-export as finished garments. The tribunal held that the minor discrepancy did not warrant confiscation or penalty, as the goods were substantially the same as those allowed for import and use in manufacturing for export. Issue 2: Competency of the adjudicating authority The Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the Deputy Collector's order, stating that the Deputy Collector was not competent to decide the case based on the value of the goods. The matter was remanded to the Collector of Customs for de novo adjudication. The tribunal found that the Deputy Collector's decision without issuing a show cause notice or obtaining consent for waiver was improper, leading to a fresh adjudication by the competent authority. Issue 3: Imposition of penalty and demand for differential customs duty The Additional Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, considering the nominal width discrepancy and lack of malafide intent. The demand for differential customs duty was based on the misdeclaration of goods. The tribunal, however, found that the goods were used for manufacturing goods exported out of India, as evidenced by entries in the DEEC book, and thus, the penalty and duty demand were deemed unjustified. Issue 4: Legal objections raised by the appellant The appellant raised a legal objection regarding the time-barred demand for duty, as the show cause notice was issued more than six months after the goods were cleared. The tribunal did not delve into this issue due to the favorable findings on the substantive matters related to the width discrepancy and the utilization of goods for export manufacturing. In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order for confiscation and penalty, as the goods were found to be substantially in compliance with the import requirements for manufacturing goods for export. The tribunal emphasized the negligible nature of the width discrepancy and the lack of justification for the confiscation and duty demand.
|
