2000 (5) TMI 696 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of imported goods
- Demand of duty
- Demand of interest
- Imposition of penalty

Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The case involved the importation of a Computerized Sucrolyzer System with standard accessories by a university under an exemption notification. The Customs authorities alleged that the exemption was wrongly claimed as the equipment was sent directly to a cooperative sugar mill and not paid for by the university. The university argued that the machine was used for research at its extension centers, known as laboratories of the university, to increase sugar yield from sugarcane. The tribunal found that although the machine was not the university's property, it was used for research purposes, leading to the setting aside of the confiscation order.

Demand of Duty and Imposition of Penalty:
The university was penalized under Section 114A of the Customs Act for wrongly availing the exemption by suppressing facts and making willful misstatements. The penalty was challenged on the grounds that the demand for duty was prior to the enactment of Section 114A. The tribunal held that since the import occurred before the provision's enactment, the penalty under Section 114A was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the question of charging interest did not arise. Additionally, a penalty imposed on a cooperative sugar mill was deemed unjust as the imported goods were used for research under the university's supervision, leading to the allowance of the appeals.

This judgment highlights the importance of correctly availing exemptions, the timing of penalty provisions, and the purpose of imported goods in determining confiscation and penalties in customs cases.