2005 (7) TMI 438 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged import of prohibited goods in the guise of declared goods.
2. Show cause notices dropped by Commissioner of Customs.
3. Validity of Phytosanitary certificates and botanical names.
4. Allegations of suppression and extended period under Customs Act.
5. Appeal against Commissioner's order.

Analysis:

1. The case involved allegations of importing prohibited goods in the guise of declared goods, specifically 'Vetch Seed' instead of 'Masoor Dhal,' which were deemed unfit for human consumption due to toxic substances. Duty demands and penal actions were initiated against multiple importers, including the respondents, based on investigations conducted by the DRI.

2. The Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) Mumbai dropped the show cause notices against all the noticees, including the respondents, on the grounds of merits and limitation, leading to the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai.

3. The Tribunal noted a previous case involving similar allegations against another party, where the Commissioner had dropped the proceedings based on the same evidence, which had attained finality as it was not appealed against by the department. In the present case, the Commissioner found that the Phytosanitary certificates indicated the botanical name of the imported goods as 'Vicia Sativa' (Vetch), but the goods were released as 'masoor' after examination by authorities.

4. The Commissioner held that the allegation of suppression was baseless as all certificates were submitted to the authorities, and the goods were extensively examined before release. Additionally, the Commissioner ruled that the extended period under the Customs Act was not applicable to the respondents, a finding unchallenged in the appeals.

5. Considering the above findings, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that there was no reason to interfere with it. The appeals were rejected, and cross-objections were disposed of accordingly, affirming the decision in favor of the respondents. The detailed proceedings of other parties involved in similar cases were also annexed to the order for reference.