2006 (3) TMI 503 - AT - Customs

Judge partially allows appeals, upholds duty demands; rules for respondents on redemption fine & penalties, sets aside confiscation orders.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR Versus SONA CASTING (P) LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR Versus SONA CASTING (P) LTD. - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 815 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Appeal against order-in-appeal allowing respondents' appeals, demand of duty, interest, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and personal penalty.Analysis:The case involves two appeals against an order-in-appeal that favored the respondents, setting aside the demands made in two orders-in-original. The respondents had imported heavy melting scrap under a specific notification requiring an undertaking for consumption/end use. The department issued a show cause notice for duty on the unutilized quantity of scrap. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, interest, and imposed penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned these orders, leading to the current appeals.The main issue raised by the learned DR was the respondents' failure to adhere to the notification conditions by not providing end use certificates for the cleared goods. The department demanded duty, interest, confiscation of goods, and personal penalty due to this non-compliance. The DR argued that the respondents' submission of the bill of entry for clearance implied acceptance of the received quantity, precluding any claims of shortage post-clearance.Upon reviewing the case, the judge found discrepancies in the quantity of goods received by the respondents as per the Customs records and the claims made by the respondents. Notably, the judge highlighted the absence of evidence regarding the alleged shortage of goods post-clearance. The judge criticized the Commissioner's reliance on photocopies of gate passes as insufficient proof of shortage, pointing out that any discrepancies should have been reported upon receipt from the warehouse. The judge concluded that the duty demand was justified due to the respondents' failure to fulfill their obligations under the notification.Regarding the redemption fine and penalty, the judge ruled in favor of the respondents. The judge opined that the respondents had not committed any actions warranting confiscation under the Customs Act, as they had provided end use certificates for the goods they received and consumed for manufacturing. Consequently, the confiscation orders were set aside, leading to the dismissal of the imposed penalties.In conclusion, the judge partially allowed the appeals, overturning the orders-in-appeal that set aside the duty demands while ruling in favor of the respondents concerning the redemption fine and penalties.