Polyester waste misdescription led to duty, interest and penalty being sustained, while confiscation was set aside and penalties reduced.

Goods described as polyester waste were treated as polyester staple fibre where documentary, testimonial and circumstantial evidence showed procurement and receipt of high-grade fibre under the guise of waste, with no proof of the alleged processing. On that basis, the duty demand, interest and equal penalty were sustained, and the extended limitation period was held invocable because the record indicated suppression and misstatement. Confiscation of plant, machinery, land and building was not sustained, while the personal penalties on officers were upheld but reduced in quantum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods described as polyester waste were in fact polyester staple fibre and the resultant duty, interest and equal penalty were sustainable; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the facts; (iii) Whether confiscation of plant, machinery, land and building and the personal penalties imposed on the officers were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the goods described as polyester waste were in fact polyester staple fibre and the resultant duty, interest and equal penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the so-called waste was procured through intermediaries at prices comparable to fibre, arrived in the original packing condition, and showed discrepancies between invoice bags and actually received bags while maintaining the same weight. The record also showed that the waste, which ought to have required heat setting, drying and sorting, was received in ready-to-use condition and no such processing was established in the factory. Statements of personnel, buyers and traders, together with test reports and documentary scrutiny, supported the finding that the appellant had in fact used good quality polyester staple fibre under the guise of waste and had cleared the resultant yarn without proper classification and without payment of duty.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly treated as polyester staple fibre, and the duty, interest and equal penalty were sustainable against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the facts.

Analysis: The Department's case was founded on suppression and misstatement detected through anti-evasion sampling and subsequent investigation. The appellant had described the fibre as waste and cleared the yarn without duty, although the surrounding circumstances and records indicated a deliberate misdescription to evade duty. These facts supported invocation of the longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation of plant, machinery, land and building and the personal penalties imposed on the officers were sustainable.

Analysis: While the findings justified imposition of liability for the clandestine conduct, the confiscation of the immovable and movable assets was not sustained. The officers were found to have been involved in the activity, but the quantum of their personal penalties was considered excessive in the circumstances and was reduced.

Conclusion: Confiscation was set aside, and the personal penalties were upheld but reduced.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand, interest and principal penalty were sustained, the limitation objection failed, confiscation was removed, and the personal penalties were brought down to a lesser amount.

Ratio Decidendi: When the totality of documentary, testimonial and circumstantial evidence shows that goods described as waste were actually high-grade fibre procured and used as such, suppression and misstatement justify duty demand and invocation of the extended limitation period.

---