1994 (2) TMI 160 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Mis-declaration of imported goods
2. Applicability of Notification No. 339/85-Cus.
3. Time-bar on demand for duty
4. Requirement and execution of bond
5. Re-export of goods without manufacturing
6. Penalty imposition

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Mis-declaration of Imported Goods:
The appellants imported goods declared as "components for footwear" under various Bills of Entry but upon examination, the consignments were found to contain complete footwear. This mis-declaration contravened Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and the appellants to penalty under Section 112.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 339/85-Cus.:
The appellants availed exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 339/85-Cus., which requires that imported goods be used for the production of goods for export. The appellants contended that there was no mis-declaration and that the goods were re-exported in the same condition. The Tribunal found that the goods were imported under the specific conditions of the notification, which were not fulfilled as the goods were not used for manufacturing but re-exported as complete footwear.

3. Time-bar on Demand for Duty:
The appellants argued that the demand for duty was time-barred as it was raised after six months. However, the Collector noted that the goods were released under bond for use inside the Export Processing Zone (EPZ), and hence, the question of time-bar did not arise. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the duty amount was indicated on the Bills of Entry with remarks that it was the amount of duty foregone.

4. Requirement and Execution of Bond:
The appellants claimed that no bond was taken for the three Bills of Entry involved. The Tribunal found that the appellants, as a unit in the NEPZ, were operating under the scheme envisaged under Notification No. 339/85, which required the execution of a bond to fulfill export obligations. The bond was designed to satisfy the conditions of the exemption notification and the export obligation monitored by the Development Commissioner.

5. Re-export of Goods without Manufacturing:
The appellants re-exported the imported complete footwear without undergoing any manufacturing process. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not used for production within the EPZ as required by the notification. The Development Commissioner had pointed out that the consignment did not fulfill the condition relating to value addition, and the appellants were directed to achieve the prescribed value addition within a reasonable period.

6. Penalty Imposition:
The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants. Considering that this was the appellants' first import and they were engaged in an export venture, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. The order of the Collector was modified to this extent but otherwise upheld.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Collector regarding the mis-declaration of goods, applicability of Notification No. 339/85-Cus., and the requirement of a bond. The demand for duty was not time-barred, and the re-export of goods without manufacturing did not fulfill the conditions of the exemption notification. The penalty was reduced considering the appellants' circumstances, but the overall order was upheld.