1992 (10) TMI 205 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Application for waiver of pre-deposit of a differential duty
- Interpretation of exemption Notification 349/86
- Adjudication of eligibility for exemption based on the presence of electronic parts in imported goods

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of pre-deposit of a differential duty amounting to Rs. 95,86,883 levied on the petitioner under an order of the Collector of Customs. The petitioner had imported a Printer Mechanism assembly, claiming exemption under Notification 349/86. The adjudicating authority denied the exemption, stating that only one part, the paper end sensor assembly, was an electronic part, disqualifying the petitioner from the benefit of the notification. The petitioner argued that past imports without the paper end sensor assembly were cleared with the exemption. The Department's affidavit explained that previous clearances were provisional and did not grant exemption. The petitioner's counsel cited a certificate from the Department of Electronics supporting the exemption claim. The counsel also referenced legal principles to argue for a favorable interpretation of the notification.

The Central Govt. Standing Counsel contended that the electronic part in question rendered the goods ineligible for exemption under the notification. The Counsel emphasized that the notification's wording did not allow for selective exemption based on individual parts. The Department's view was that the notification should be applied without dissecting the imported parts. The Counsel highlighted that past clearances without electronic parts did not set a precedent for the current case. Financial hardship was not substantiated by the petitioner.

The tribunal analyzed the arguments and notification provisions. It acknowledged the presence of the electronic part, the paper end sensor assembly, in the imported goods. The tribunal found no flaw in the adjudicating authority's interpretation of the notification. It determined that the petitioner was not entitled to a waiver of pre-deposit based on prima facie grounds. Despite the lack of financial evidence, the tribunal directed the petitioner to pre-deposit Rs. 25,00,000 by a specified date, with the balance amount's pre-deposit waived pending appeal. The recovery of the balance amount was stayed subject to compliance with the tribunal's order. The case was scheduled for a compliance update on a specified date.