9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled his report on the points raised vide C. No.VIII/48/2/ 2002-SC, dated 6-5-2003. A further hearing was held on 14-8-2003. The applicants were represented by Shri B.V. Kumar, Advocate. The Revenue was represented by Shri N. Uma Shankar, Assistant Director, DRI, Bangalore. 2. In brief, the aforesaid SCN of ADG, DRI, observes and alleges, inter alia, that the main applicant had obtained different advance licences for different models of Pagers, by submission of appropriate Bill of Material to the JDGFT, the licencing authority. The Licence No. 07001273, dated 14-10-97 had been obtained specifically for imports for manufacture and export of Monopoly model of Pagers, whereas import had taken place of components and parts for various other models of Pagers also. The said components and parts imported against this licence had not been fully utilized in the export product, namely, Monopoly model. Finally, the unutilised (in the manufacture of Monopoly model Pagers exported) components/parts had gone into the manufacture of other models of Pagers, either for export or for the local market. Accordingly, the SCN proposes to demand a differential duty of Rs. 75,82,356/- in addition to R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the unutilized goods and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. However, it is also mentioned that on an appeal filed by them the Hon ble CEGAT, South Zone Bench set aside the above order dated 9-6-2000 of the Commissioner, vide their Final Order No. 565/2001, dated 19-3-2001 [2001 (138) E.L.T. 870 (T)]. However, the DRI again commenced investigation to ascertain the correctness of the worksheet submitted by the applicant vide their letter dated 23-12-99 mentioned above, resulting in the subject proceedings, sought to be got settled. In the said SCN of DRI, it is proposed to demand a differential duty of Rs. 75,82,356/- (over and above Rs. 40,53,457/- already admitted by the applicant in their worksheet enclosed to their letter dated 23-12-99 to the Customs and also paid). 4. In their application, the main applicant admitted a differential duty liability of only Rs. 17,40,535/-, as against the aforesaid proposal of DRI to demand Rs. 75,82,356/- In the said application, as well as during the hearing held on 6-2-2003, it is admitted that there is a shortfall in meeting export obligation. It is explained that this was due to various reasons, including the change in customer prefere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant s Counsel that under the advance licence in question, they had imported components only for monopoly model Pagers and, therefore, the differential duty liability of Rs. 32,77,190/- already admitted by them should be deemed to be full and true disclosure. However, Shri Uma Shankar, Asstt. Director drew attention of the Bench to the statement dated 4-7-2001 of Shri T. Chellappa, Fulfilment Operations Controller of the main applicant-Company, wherein he had admitted that the components under this particular licence had been used for other costlier models of Pagers diverted to the domestic market and that the said statement has not been retracted so far. Also, even the report dated 6-5-2003 of Commissioner (Inv.) of the Bench indicated that high value components were also imported against the advance licence in question. But, he conceded fairly that it will not be possible to identify Bills of Entry-wise the components imported for, and used in the manufacture of costlier Pagers, since the said parts/components are since scrapped and the Division is also closed. Accordingly, he insisted on the adoption of the highest value of the components imported to arrive at the duty liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have discussed this matter with our Management, namely Finance Controller of South Asia Region and Head, Legal, India and as M/s. Motorola wishes that the issue be closed and no further investigation or demand be raised on this issue and the payment made by us may please be accepted. (The Bench also observes that in the statement dated 24-5-2000 of Shri S. Shivaram, Commercial Administrator, of the applicant-Company, also it is mentioned that .....I have to state that apart from import of duty free components part for Monopoly model of Pagers we have imported components and parts for other models of Pagers also under the said licence. ) This statement has not been retracted. Thereupon, the counsel requested the Bench to appreciate the circumstances in which the statements were given, but at the same time fairly conceded to admit the entire differential duty demanded in the SCN, which amount itself was based on the statement and worksheet furnished by the said Shri T. Chellappa. Therefore, they have accepted the full duty liability, even though at the behest of the Bench, but in true spirit of settlement. Accordingly, they become eligible for immunity from penalty, and prosec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is granted in terms of Section 127H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 from penalty and prosecution under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) The main applicant, M/s. Motorola India (Pvt.) Ltd, shall pay a simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum, on the aforesaid settled duty amount of Rs. 75,82,356/-, from the day it was due, till the date/dates of its actual payment. Immunity is granted in terms of Section 127H(1), ibid, from interest in excess of the said 10% per annum. The Respondent Commissioner shall work out the interest due from the main applicant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and communicate to the applicant and also adjust the interest amount from the deposit already made. If however, the said deposit is not sufficient, then the applicant shall make good the balance amount, if any due from them towards interest within 15 days of receipt of communication from the Commissioner and report compliance to this Bench. (iv) Immunity is also granted in terms of Section 127H(1) from penalty and prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 to S/Shri A. Balakumar, Senior Manager, Distribution, Logistics and Government Compliance, S. Shivar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
