9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e lakhs only) in lieu of confiscation. (iii) I demand duty of ₹ 16,73,368/- under proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 from M/s. Comptech Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Chennai. (iv) Out of the total duty demanded, an amount of ₹ 2,48,409/- became liable to be paid after 28.9.96, the date on which Section 114A of Customs Act came into force. They are therefore liable to a penalty under Section 114 to this extent. Accordingly, I impose a penalty of ₹ 2,48,409/- (Rupees two lakhs forty eight thousand four hundred and nine only) on M/s. Comptech Electronics P. Ltd. Chennai under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) In regard to goods imported prior to 28.9.96, I hold that the importers are liable to a penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, I impose a penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act on them. (vi) I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on Shri Vikas Chandra, Managing Director, M/s. Comptech Electronics P. Ltd. Chennai under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (vii) I order that the payment of ₹ 14,00,000/- made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed one consignment of 100 Mother Boards under Bill of Entry No. 27492 dated 27.5.97. Shri Vikas Chandra, Managing Director of M/s. Comptech Electronics P. Ltd. in his further statement dated 23.7.97 also stated that the original packing list for the present consignment was 10 pages long giving details of small items like resistors, capacitors, screws, nuts, PCBs, coils, wires, etc. contained in the consignment in 155 packages. The packing list submitted to Customs contained only major and high value items like ICs, diodes, connectors, CRTs with deflection yoke and plastic moulded parts. The remaining items were omitted since they were minor and of low value and for operation convenience and to avoid lengthy and cumbersome packing list. He, further, submitted that he was aware of that these items fall under Customs Tariff Headings attracting different rates of duty. Detailed investigations were conducted by the DRI and a total differential duty amount of ₹ 1,85,02,508/- was calculated for the imports from all the four suppliers for the period from 1992 onwards. The importers paid ₹ 14,00,000/- towards duty liability immediately. In view of the misdeclaration of descripti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and revised invoices were given by the suppliers on their request as desired by the customs. He, further, submitted that these goods could not be declared by them because they were not aware whether the small goods were also packed inside the consignment. He, further, submitted that there was no incriminating document received during the search. It is only the packing list, one was with the container and the other was submitted along with the Bill of Entry with the customs. The value of such items which are not individually declared is hardly 7% of the total value and is very marginal and such marginal difference is required to be ignored. He also submited that the order of the Commissioner confiscating the goods to the value of ₹ 14,58,482/- whereas the goods valued at only ₹ 3,68,064 were found to be not declared. The Commissioner's order of confiscating the total consignment is not proper and it cannot be held that the mis-declaration was against the whole consignment. He also submitted that the goods, which were abandoned by them after clearance from customs, duty should not have been charged on them as they had not redeemed these goods on payment of fine and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be assessed on merit individually as per the rates prescribed in the individual tariff heading which has been admitted by them through their Managing Director Shri Vikas Chandra who had also admitted that he was aware of the different rates of duty on individual items. She further submitted that the adjudicating authority have held that the importers have not declared the goods like resistors, capacitors, transformers, unpopulated PCBs, etc. in the bills of entry though individual values were available in the invoices supplied by the manufacturers. She, further, submitted that the items like resistors, transformers, etc. attract higher rates of duty than ICs. It was therefore incorrect to club the itemsin such a manner for the purpose of assessment since Section 19 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 which provides for highest of such rates to be adopted in the event of such clubbing of articles. To that extent, it was clear that there was mis-declaration before customs for assessment and extended time period as per proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was invokable. She, therefore, submitted that the consignment covered under bill of entry No. 36803 dated 14.7.97 is liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal position and the law laid down by this Bench in number of cases and by various coordinated Benches. We have in the matter of Prudential Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai as reported in 2001 (47) RLT 600 (CEGAT-Che.)=2001 (136) ELT 1057 (Tri.- Chennai) have held that redemption fine is not imposeable when goods are not available for confiscation and is outside the purview and legal provisions as contained under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly, the Northern Bench in the matter of Mazagon Dock Ltd. Mangalore Vs. CC, Bangalore as reported in 1990 (28) ELT 423 (CEGAT, SB-C) has held that there can be no confiscation or redemption fine imposed on goods not available for confiscation. The judgments cited by the revenue are pertaining to the imposition of penalty even if the goods are not available for confiscation as they are liable for confiscation. They are not talking about the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine on the goods which are not available for confiscation. Therefore no contrary judgment by revenue has been placed before us to support their contention that goods can be confiscated and redemption fine can be imposed even if the goods are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
