2013 (11) TMI 391 - AT - Customs

Demand of duty - Illegal import - Held that - Impugned order was passed in terms of the remand order dated 17.11.2008 of the Tribunal - While remanding the matter the Tribunal categorically directed that any issues settled herein shall not be reopened. We find that the Commissioner, without following the direction of the remand order by the Tribunal, has fixed the duty liability on Shri K.N. Parekh, which is prima facie not acceptable. The applicants have already deposited Rs.12.65 lakhs and penalty partly as per the direction of the earlier stay order. In our view, the deposits made by the applicants are sufficient for waiver of predeposit of balance amount of duty and penalty. Accordingly, predeposit of balance amount of duty and penalties is waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeals. All the stay applications are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recalling of the miscellaneous order dated 5.2.2013 passed ex parte.
2. Confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalties.
3. Compliance with the remand order dated 17.11.2008 of the Tribunal.
4. Appropriation of deposited amounts and waiver of predeposit of balance amount.

Analysis:

1. The applicants filed miscellaneous applications for recalling the ex parte Miscellaneous Order No.40325 to 40330/2013 dated 5.2.2013. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, recalled the stay order dated 5.2.2013 and proceeded to dispose of the stay applications with the consent of both parties.

2. The impugned order confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalties on the involved parties. The Commissioner found that the imported goods were misrepresented as 'Lactose' but were actually pharmaceutical products. Penalties were imposed on the authorized representative and others involved in the illegal import.

3. The Tribunal examined the compliance with the remand order dated 17.11.2008. The counsel argued that a significant amount had already been deposited towards duty and penalty as per the remand order. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the adjudication order concerning the direction of the remand order, which required specific findings before recovering duty from the importer's agent.

4. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner did not follow the direction of the remand order, which led to fixing duty liability on the authorized representative, contrary to the Tribunal's directive. Considering the deposits made by the applicants, the Tribunal waived the predeposit of the balance amount of duty and penalties, allowing the stay applications and staying the recovery during the appeal's pendency.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of recalling the order, confirmation of duty demand and penalties, compliance with the remand order, and the appropriation of deposited amounts with the waiver of predeposit of the balance amount as addressed in the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI.