2019 (4) TMI 913 - AT - Customs

Re-import/import of goods - N/N. 53/1997-Customs dated 03 June 1997 and 52/ 2003-Cus dated 31 March 2003 - remand of the case for de novo adjudication - Held that - The documents produced by the appellant are bank realisation certificates from Punjab National Bank. Though the certificates are again the photocopies. However, the Department has also placed on record the verification report confirming all the requisite 4 certificates to be in order - But the Commissioner is observed to have ignored the documents, the bank realisation certificates to arrive at proper verification. Said verifying documents are now also placed on record and are acknowledged to have been verified as correct by the department also. Hence the demand of ₹ 8,55,087/-, ₹ 6897/- ₹ 3248/- and ₹ 2263 also stands set aside. Thus, the order under challenge has not complied the directions of remand properly. The only demand stands confirmed against the appellant is that of ₹ 3,05,011/- as the recovery of Customs duty forgone amount. The same has already been conceded by the appellant. The proportionate value of Redemption Fine is therefore, reduced to Rupee Three lakh and the proportionate penalty accordingly is reduced to Rupees One lakh only. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under customs notification to the appellant.
2. Dispute over the demand of customs duty and penalties.
3. Compliance with tribunal's directions in previous orders.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of exemption under customs notification
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing stone studded gold and silver jewelry, was alleged to have evaded customs duty amounting to ?6,12,18,245 under show cause notice No. 105/2012/1491. The department disputed the availability of exemption under notifications No. 53/1997-Customs and 52/2003-Cus for re-imported/imported goods. The appellant contended that all necessary documents were submitted to confirm a demand of ?8.55 lakh, which they believed should be waived. The tribunal noted the submission of bank realization certificates and their verification, which the adjudicating authority had allegedly ignored.

Issue 2: Dispute over the demand of customs duty and penalties
The tribunal observed that the matter had undergone multiple rounds of litigation. Initially, the demand of ?6,12,18,245 was confirmed, leading to subsequent appeals and remands. The final order dated 09 March 2017 directed de novo adjudication considering additional documents. The subsequent order-in-original confirmed duty of ?14,07,610 along with penalties and confiscation of goods. The tribunal, in the final order dated 09 March 2017, set aside certain demands but confirmed ?3,05,011 for re-imported jewelry. The present appeal challenged the Commissioner's failure to consider bank realization certificates, leading to a confirmation of the demand of ?14,07,610.

Issue 3: Compliance with tribunal's directions in previous orders
The tribunal found that the Commissioner had not properly considered the bank realization certificates, which were later verified and found correct by the department. As per the earlier final order, demands of ?8,55,087, ?6897, ?3248, and ?2263 were set aside. The only demand upheld was ?3,05,011 as recovery of customs duty forgone, which the appellant had conceded. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced to ?3,00,000 and the penalty to ?1,00,000, resulting in partial allowance of the present appeal.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues related to the denial of exemption under customs notification, the dispute over the demand of customs duty and penalties, and the compliance with the tribunal's directions in previous orders, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.