2003 (8) TMI 376 - AT - Customs

Appellant Ordered to Deposit Duty: Balancing Legal Positions on Misrepresentation & Exemptions

The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified sum towards duty within a set timeframe, considering legal positions on misrepresentation and ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Import - Advance licence Issues involved:1. Allegation of selling imported goods without entitlement.2. Importing glycerine after using sorbitol in manufacturing.3. Sale of licenses to a third party.4. Allegations of misrepresentation to Customs.5. Entitlement to exemption under specific Notifications.6. Calculation of customs duty and time-barring of the demand.7. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order.Issue 1: Allegation of selling imported goods without entitlement:The case involved allegations that the appellants were not entitled to sell goods imported under licenses due to availing Modvat credit, importing glycerine after using sorbitol, and selling licenses to a third party. The Show Cause Notice accused the appellants of contravening Customs Act provisions and sought confiscation and penalties.Issue 2: Importing glycerine after using sorbitol in manufacturing:The appellants imported glycerine after using sorbitol in manufacturing, which raised concerns about compliance with regulations. The argument presented was that imports were permissible post-fulfillment of export obligations and reversal of Modvat credit, as accepted by the Commissioner.Issue 3: Sale of licenses to a third party:Three out of six licenses were allegedly sold to a third party, leading to discussions on duty liability for the buyer and the failure of the Commissioner to address this aspect adequately.Issue 4: Allegations of misrepresentation to Customs:The appellants were accused of misrepresenting facts to Customs during goods clearance. The defense highlighted fulfillment of export obligations, waiver of legal conditions, and compliance with licensing requirements.Issue 5: Entitlement to exemption under specific Notifications:Debates centered on the appellants' entitlement to exemption under Notifications 159/90-Cus. and 204/92-Cus. Legal precedents were cited to support the claim of permissible imports and the lack of grounds for denying exemption based on misrepresentation.Issue 6: Calculation of customs duty and time-barring of the demand:Detailed calculations of customs duty were presented, emphasizing the alleged ignorance by the Commissioner. Arguments were made regarding the time-barring of the demand and the necessity for a thorough examination of the issues during the final hearing.Issue 7: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order:Concerns were raised about the violation of natural justice principles in passing the order without affording adequate opportunity for the appellants to present their case fully. The defense contended that the order should be set aside on this ground.In the final judgment, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified sum towards duty within a set timeframe, considering legal positions on misrepresentation and entitlement to exemptions. The decision aimed to balance the interests of the parties pending a detailed examination of the issues during the final hearing.