2001 (7) TMI 406 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty confirmation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act.
2. Penalty imposition under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Violation of conditions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus.
4. Principles of natural justice violation.
5. Failure to fulfill export obligation.
6. Allegation of selling raw material in the local market.
7. Admission of selling raw material in the local market.
8. Lack of submission of Bank realization certificate.
9. Compliance with Notification No. 203/92-Cus.

Analysis:

1. The appellant appealed against the order confirming duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act and imposing a penalty of Rs. 60 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the import of Tetracycline, Riboflavin, and Thiamine without paying customs duty as per Notification No. 203/92-Cus, where the goods were to be used for manufacturing medicine for export.

2. The appellant argued that financial difficulties led to obtaining a loan secured by the imported goods, which were released for manufacturing medicine and subsequent export. However, the appellant was accused of selling the imported raw material in the local market without fulfilling the export obligation, violating the conditions of the notification.

3. The appellant contended that the impugned order violated natural justice principles by not providing necessary documents for defense and denying cross-examination of witnesses. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant admitted to selling the raw material in the local market before meeting the export obligation, which negated the claim of prejudice due to procedural issues.

4. The appellant claimed that despite fulfilling 93% of the export obligation, external factors like a plague outbreak in India and export restrictions hindered complete fulfillment. The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to provide a Bank realization certificate for the exports, further supporting the claim of non-compliance with the notification conditions.

5. The Tribunal noted the appellant's admission of selling duty-free raw material in the local market without evidence of fulfilling the export obligation. The absence of Bank realization certificates and failure to meet the export conditions as per Notification No. 203/92-Cus led to the dismissal of the appeal, upholding the duty confirmation and penalty imposition.