2013 (9) TMI 943 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - Misdeclaration - Penalties u/s 112(a) and 114AA Confiscation u/s 111(d) and 111(m) - Revenue was of the view that the goods which were imported are classifiable under sub heading No.27101190 - Whether the goods which were imported were classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No.2710 as claimed by the department - Held that - The chemical examiner had given a report that the samples were other than crude mineral oil gas condensed and natural gasoline - It was seen that there was a neutral test report issued which would indicate that the product which was imported had completely distilled much before the temperature as indicated for the products which were classifiable under Customs Tarff Act 2709. - the issue needs thorough in depth consideration, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeals. - stay granted partly. Re-export on Payment of Fine - The plea for the re-export of the goods on payment of the fine as imposed by the adjudicating authority, seems to be in accordance with the law as the adjudicating authority had already held it so - But since the adjudicating authoritys order was not complied within the thirty days limit - the lower authorities were directed to allow re-export of the goods on payment of redemption fine.

Summary

Issues: Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad considered stay petitions filed by various appellants seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties were imposed by the adjudicating authority based on findings that the imported goods were mis-declared and classifiable under a specific customs tariff heading. The adjudicating authority held the goods liable for confiscation under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing that canalised goods could only be imported through Indian Oil Corporation.

2. Upon hearing both sides and examining the evidence, the Tribunal noted that the crucial issue at hand was the classification of the imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading No. 2710 as claimed by the department. The department's case relied on various pieces of evidence, including reports from different laboratories, chemical examiners' statements, and cross-examinations. Divergent views emerged from the evidence, leading the Tribunal to conclude that a thorough consideration of the issue was necessary at the final disposal stage of the appeals.

3. The Tribunal found that certain appellants, namely M/s. World Link T.C. Bond Stores, Shri Ashish Batavia, M/s. Frost International Ltd., and Shri Sujay Uday Desai, did not prima facie appear liable for penalties under the relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the stay petitions of these appellants were allowed, halting the recovery of imposed penalties until the final disposal of their appeals.

4. For the remaining appellants, the Tribunal directed them to deposit specified amounts within a given timeframe. The compliance deadline for these deposits was set, and subject to timely compliance, the applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of the remaining amounts were allowed, with recovery stayed pending the appeal's final disposal.

5. Additionally, a specific plea was made by M/s. Samchira DMCC for the re-export of abandoned goods upon payment of redemption fine. The Tribunal acknowledged the adjudicating authority's option for redemption of goods under confiscation and directed lower authorities to permit re-export of goods by M/s. Samchira DMCC upon payment of the redemption fine within a specified timeframe from the receipt of the stay order.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the Tribunal's decision on the stay petitions and the related issues concerning penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the classification of imported goods and the subsequent actions required from the appellants.