1999 (6) TMI 102 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. and Notification No. 3/98-Cus.
Retrospective application of Notification No. 3/98-Cus.
Validity of duty imposition based on retrospective application.
Prima facie case for waiving and staying recovery of duty.

Interpretation of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. and Notification No. 3/98-Cus.:
The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. and Notification No. 3/98-Cus. regarding the classification of imported goods declared as Computer Software. The applicants argued that the goods should be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus., while the adjudicating authority applied the definition of 'Computer Software' from Notification No. 3/98-Cus. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the imposition of differential duty based on this interpretation.

Retrospective application of Notification No. 3/98-Cus.:
The key contention was whether Notification No. 3/98-Cus. could be applied retrospectively to goods assessed earlier under a different notification. The applicants' advocate argued against the retrospective application, citing judgments from the Supreme Court that established a precedent against such retrospective effect. The Commissioner's decision to apply the notification retrospectively was challenged based on legal principles and settled positions of law.

Validity of duty imposition based on retrospective application:
The validity of imposing a heavy duty liability on the applicants due to the retrospective application of Notification No. 3/98-Cus. was questioned. The applicants presented evidence supporting their claim that the imported goods were indeed Computer Software, including opinions from reputable sources and experts in the field. The Commissioner's findings were scrutinized, and the Tribunal found that the retrospective application of the notification was not justified, especially in light of Supreme Court judgments that had a binding character.

Prima facie case for waiving and staying recovery of duty:
After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal agreed with the applicants' advocate that they had a strong prima facie case. The Tribunal found that the judgments of the Supreme Court, which prohibited retrospective application of notifications, were more authoritative than the Tribunal judgments cited by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Stay Petition unconditionally, indicating a favorable stance towards the applicants' position and the waiver of the duty recovery.