9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Admissibility of benefit under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. 2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Imposition of penalty on the importer. Admissibility of benefit under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E.: The appellants filed a Bill of Entry seeking clearance of sewing machines under the EPCG scheme and exemption from additional duty of customs under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. The machines were supplied with motors, which were not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Entry. The department held the benefit of the notification as inadmissible, confirming a differential duty demand. The Tribunal noted that the packing list and invoice clearly indicated the presence of motors. It was established that there was no misdeclaration of goods, and the claim for notification benefit was not mala fide. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal upheld the differential duty demand but set aside the confiscation, fine, and penalty. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962: The goods in question were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to the perceived inadmissibility of the benefit under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. The Tribunal, upon review, found that the description of goods in the packing list and invoice was accurate, clearly indicating the presence of motors. It was concluded that there was no misdeclaration that warranted confiscation. The Tribunal also considered the absence of mala fide intent on the part of the appellants, as evidenced by the submission of relevant documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of goods. Imposition of penalty on the importer: In addition to the confiscation, a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the importer. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and legal precedents, determined that the appellants did not engage in any mala fide actions regarding the benefit claim under the notification. The Tribunal referred to a specific case law to support the decision to set aside the penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the penalty, along with the confiscation and fine, while upholding the differential duty demand. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of admissibility of benefit under a specific notification, confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, and imposition of penalties, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision in this case.
|
