2010 (9) TMI 1016 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Duty Demand & Penalties for Trade Policy Violations by Gujarat Adani Aviation

The Tribunal confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 14,67,15,486 against M/s. Gujarat Adani Aviation Pvt. Ltd., upholding penalties imposed by the Commissioner ... - Issues:1. Confirmation of demand of duty against M/s. Gujarat Adani Aviation Pvt. Ltd.2. Violation of provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and conditions of notification.3. Different uses of the imported aircraft.4. Discrepancy in treatment of similar cases by the Revenue.5. Bank guarantee and pre-deposit of penalties.Analysis:1. The judgment concerns the confirmation of a duty demand amounting to Rs. 14,67,15,486 against M/s. Gujarat Adani Aviation Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and imposed penalties on the appellants.2. The impugned order found that the importation of an aircraft by M/s. Gujarat Adani Aviation Pvt. Ltd. under full duty exemption was in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy and the notification conditions. The aircraft was used for 'Non-scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger)' and 'Non-scheduled Air Transport (Charter Operation),' requiring separate permits.3. The judgment referenced a similar case involving M/s. Airmid Aviation Service Private Limited and M/s. GMR Aviation Service Private Limited where proceedings were dropped by Customs, Delhi. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Revenue's treatment of similar cases, indicating that different views were entertained for other assessees in similar situations.4. Notably, the Tribunal highlighted that a stay order passed in another case was set aside by the High Court of Delhi, emphasizing the need for a fair approach. The High Courts of Bombay and Delhi had issued judgments regarding the pre-deposit of penalties, influencing the decision to dispense with pre-deposit and stay the recovery of penalties during the appeal's pendency.5. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal directed M/s. Gujarat Adani Aviation Pvt. Ltd. to maintain a bank guarantee of Rs. 14 crores during the appeal process. The advocate's assurance to keep the bank guarantee active was deemed fair, leading to the dispensation of pre-deposit requirements and the stay of penalty recovery for the appellants.In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to duty demands, violation of trade policies, discrepancies in Revenue's treatment of cases, and the provision of bank guarantees to secure penalties during the appeal process. The decision aimed to ensure fairness and consistency in dealing with similar cases while upholding legal requirements and considerations.