1999 (6) TMI 178 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Dispensation with pre-deposit of penalty amount
- Misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods
- Adjustment of penalty amount from Bank Guarantee
- Applicability of previous tribunal decision

Dispensation with pre-deposit of penalty amount:
The applicant firm sought dispensation with the pre-deposit of a penalty amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The firm clarified that they were not challenging the valuation done by the Customs Authorities but were appealing only against the imposition of the penalty. They argued that they had imported a chemical disclosed as 'Mesityl Oxide' but found to be 'Must Ketone' upon testing. The value was fixed at US $ 9.93 per kg initially and later reduced to US $ 8.20 per kg (CIF) by the Commissioner (Appeals). The firm claimed entitlement to a refund of duty due to the lower valuation and requested waiver of the penalty under Section 129E.

Misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods:
The Respondent argued that the case involved clear misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods, which the applicants had accepted. The penalty was deemed justifiable by the Respondent, who highlighted that the Additional Commissioner had ordered the penalty amount to be adjusted from a Bank Guarantee provided by the party. The Respondent contended that the Bank Guarantee had not been encashed yet. The Tribunal noted that the applicants themselves acknowledged the misdeclaration and undervaluation, leading to the imposition of the penalty.

Adjustment of penalty amount from Bank Guarantee:
The Additional Commissioner had directed the Department to adjust the penalty amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh from the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1,27,413.00 submitted by the party. Despite the direction, the Bank Guarantee had not been encashed. The Tribunal directed the Department to encash the Bank Guarantee for the full penalty amount within six weeks. If the Bank Guarantee was no longer valid, the applicants were instructed to deposit the amount in cash and report compliance to the Tribunal.

Applicability of previous tribunal decision:
The learned Advocate for the applicant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in a different case to support their argument. However, the Tribunal found that the decision cited was not relevant to the present case as the applicants had admitted to the misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicants did not challenge the valuation adopted by the authorities, establishing the misdeclaration. The Tribunal directed the Department to take necessary action regarding the penalty amount and scheduled the appeal hearing for a specific date.