9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rthikeyan, Member (T) [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].- M/s. Premier Instruments Controls Ltd. [M/s. PRICOL for short] are manufacturers of automotive instruments. They had imported 3 items viz. mould inserts, head drills and injection moulds during the period October 1989 to October 1994. The design, drawing and technical information required for manufacture of finished goods out of these imported item were also procured from the supplier. However, the value of design, drawings and technical information was not included in the assessable value of the imported goods. The Bills of Entry covering mould inserts were filed during the period 16.10.1989 to 29.4.1991, the lone Bill of Entry covering head drills was filed on 23.11.199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mports of mould inserts and head drill and the same is beyond the period of five years preceding the date of issue of the show-cause notice. Insofar as injection moulds are concerned, a few imports were within five years preceding the date of the show-cause notice. In this case also, learned counsel has contested the demand by submitting that there was no suppression of facts by the assessee. In this connection, he has referred to a statement dated 6.9.1993 of Shri S. Rajagopal, Deputy Manager (Imports Exports) of M/s. PRICOL, wherein he had stated that he had been attending to processing of indents, placing of orders, evolving modalities in terms of purchase in consultation with respective department etc., that as per the indent for moul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of J.K. Steel Alloys (supra), limitation was not pleaded before the Tribunal, unlike in the present case and the appellants in the present case have pleaded limitation against the demand of duty. After considering the submissions, we have found force in the submissions of learned counsel. The factual position is crystal clear. The relevant facts had been presented before the Customs authorities by the assessee is almost soon after the imports in question. The relevant allegation in the show-cause notice is that they segregated the value of design, drawings and technical information deliberately with intent to evade payment of correct amount of duty. It was precisely this factum of segregation which was disclosed to the departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erve that there is no period of limitation for confiscation related penalties like the one laid down under Section 112 of the Customs Act. However, we do not think that learned Commissioner ought to have imposed such a harsh penalty as Rs.10.00 lakhs on the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce it to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only). 5. Insofar as the CHA is concerned, the allegation was that he abetted the offence of the importer thereby rendering the goods liable to confiscation. It was on this basis, learned Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh on the CHA under the same provision (Section 112 of the Customs Act). Hereagain, the main plan for challenge is Shri Rajagopal's statement, wherein h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
