2009 (2) TMI 585 - AT - Customs

Imported goods declared as 'plastic scrap' reclassified as plastic bags by the Commissioner. Tribunal stay order for provisional release.

AISHWARYA PLAST EXPORTS (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (EXPORT), NHAVA SHEVA

The appellants imported goods declared as 'plastic scrap' but were classified as plastic bags by the department. The Commissioner redetermined the value ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Provisional release of goods Issues:1. Classification of imported goods as plastic scrap or plastic bags.2. Determination of the value of the goods for assessment to duty.3. Confiscation of goods, imposition of fine, and penalty.4. Permission for provisional release of goods.Classification of Imported Goods:The appellants imported goods declared as 'plastic scrap' but were classified by the department as plastic bags. The Commissioner redetermined the value of the goods at US$ 1200 per MT for duty assessment. The appellants argued that the goods were plastic scrap and provided parameters of serviceable plastic bags, which were not considered. They requested permission to mutilate the goods, but it was not granted. The Tribunal inspected samples and noted they appeared to be plastic bags, but could not confirm if they met serviceable plastic bag specifications used by municipal bodies for garbage disposal.Determination of Value and Penalties:The Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) with a fine of Rs. 5.00 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on the appellants. The appellants expressed willingness to pay duty based on the value determined by the Commissioner and provide a bank guarantee for the fine and penalty to clear the goods and avoid further demurrage. The Tribunal stayed the operation of the order on the condition that the duty amount is paid based on the assessable value determined by the Commissioner and a bank guarantee is furnished for fine and penalty for provisional release of the goods.Provisional Release of Goods:The Tribunal inclined to permit the appellants to apply for provisional release of the goods as they were willing to comply with the duty payment and furnish a bank guarantee. The release was considered beneficial as the goods could be used by municipal bodies for the intended purpose. The operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to the conditions of payment and bank guarantee for provisional release of the goods.