2006 (9) TMI 426 - AT - Customs

Appeal Partially Upheld: Deposit Rs. 6.00 Crores within 12 Weeks for Waiver

The Tribunal partially upheld the appeal, requiring the applicant-company to deposit Rs. 6.00 crores within 12 weeks, in addition to the duty already ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation Issues:Applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand and penalties imposed on the company and its directors. Adjudication of duty demand, penalties, and confiscation by the Commissioner.Detailed Analysis:1. Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition: The case involved duty demand and penalties imposed on the company and its directors by the Commissioner for alleged misdeclaration of imported goods. The duty demand amounted to Rs. 28,00,65,375, and penalties were levied on M/s. ICOMM Tele Ltd., Brig. Krishna Nandan, and Sumanth Paturu. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties along with confiscation of goods.2. Contentions of the Applicants: The applicants argued that the assessments were provisional, and hence, the Show Cause Notice for duty demand and penalties could not have been issued before finalization of the assessments. They relied on precedents to support their claim that penalties cannot be imposed on provisional assessments. Additionally, the applicants contended that the imported goods were parts, not complete equipment, and the value enhancement by the department lacked evidence. They also challenged the application of Customs Valuation Rules by the Commissioner.3. Revenue's Position: The Revenue asserted that the imported goods were complete DWDM Equipment, not parts, and were deliberately misdeclared to avail duty benefits. Statements from company officials were presented as evidence to support the claim of misdeclaration and value manipulation by the company's management.4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal acknowledged the argument that Interpretative Rule 2(a) might not apply for claiming exemption, as per precedents. However, regarding valuation, the Tribunal found the applicants failed to establish a strong case in their favor. The Commissioner's findings, based on statements of company officers, were considered substantial. The Tribunal directed the applicant-company to deposit Rs. 6.00 crores within 12 weeks, in addition to the duty already paid, to avail a waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining duty and penalties. Non-compliance would lead to the vacation of stay and dismissal of appeals.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially upheld the appeal by requiring a substantial deposit from the applicant-company while granting a waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining duty and penalties pending appeal resolution.