1995 (1) TMI 183 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Section 120-A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Levy of penalty on grounds of contravention of ITC Regulations and under-valuation of imported goods.
3. Clarification from licensing authorities regarding imported goods.
4. Legal evidence for under-valuation charges.
5. Financial hardship of the petitioner.
6. Separate penalties on Proprietor and Proprietorship concern.
7. Requirement of manufacturer's invoice under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Analysis:

The judgment addresses the issue of waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed under Section 120-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, a Proprietorship concern, challenges the penalty levied for contravention of ITC Regulations and under-valuation of imported goods. The petitioner argues that there should not be separate penalties for the concern and the Proprietor, citing a previous ruling by a Special Bench of the Tribunal. The petitioner also refers to a Public Notice clarifying that the imported goods do not fall under the negative list of inputs. Additionally, the petitioner claims financial hardship with minimal profits.

The Respondents contend that penalties were imposed for contravention of ITC Regulations and under-valuation. They highlight the absence of manufacturer's invoices despite requests by the Department, indicating non-compliance with Customs Valuation Rules. The Respondents refer to the Export Price List of a company to support their under-valuation charge.

The Tribunal examines the submissions and finds that the goods are still under detention and not cleared. Considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal agrees with the petitioner's argument against separate penalties on the Proprietor and the Proprietorship concern, following the precedent set by a previous ruling. However, regarding the under-valuation charge, the Tribunal notes the absence of manufacturer's invoices, which is required under Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal directs the petitioner to pre-deposit a specific amount as penalty, acknowledging the circumstances and the need for compliance.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of penalty waiver, contravention of regulations, under-valuation charges, financial hardship, and compliance with Customs Valuation Rules. It emphasizes the importance of legal evidence, precedent, and regulatory compliance in determining penalties for customs violations.