2002 (1) TMI 1256 - AT - Customs

Tribunal emphasizes duty payment compliance, rules in favor of appellants.

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing compliance with the notification's conditions by timely payment of duty. The decision ... EXIM Policy - EPCG Licence - Interest - Differential duty Issues:Appeal against demand of duty, interest, confiscation of goods, and penalty under EPCG Licence with Notification No. 110/95.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by M/s. Paharpur Plastics against the demand of duty, interest, confiscation of goods, and penalty. The appellants had imported capital goods under EPCG Licence with a condition to export goods of equal value within five years. Due to a factory lock-out causing a delay, the differential duty was paid before the deadline. The Commissioner demanded duty, interest, and imposed penalties, leading to the appeal.The appellants argued that they complied with the conditions of Notification No. 110/95 by paying the differential duty before the expiry of five years. Reference was made to previous judgments highlighting the distinction between Sections 111 and 112 regarding confiscation and penalties. It was emphasized that the goods were not liable for confiscation as the duty was paid within the specified time frame.The Revenue contended that since the goods were imported under concessional duty, failure to export goods of equal value made the duty payable, leading to confiscation. The Revenue supported the decision of the authorities below.Upon hearing the arguments, the tribunal noted that the differential duty was paid before the deadline, fulfilling the conditions of the notification. As the duty was paid within the stipulated time, there was no basis for confiscation of goods. Regarding interest, it was clarified that no liability arose as the duty was paid on time. The tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that no interest was payable and any consequential relief would be granted to the appellants as per the law.In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing compliance with the notification's conditions by timely payment of the duty. The decision highlighted the importance of meeting statutory requirements to avoid penalties and confiscation of goods, ultimately allowing the appeal and providing relief to the appellants in accordance with the law.