TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Appeal Outcome: Duty demand set aside, confiscation upheld, fines reduced.</h1> <h3>VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI</h3> VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI - 2013 (292) E.L.T. 193 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Demand of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act.2. Liability to confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and consequential imposition of penalties.Detailed Analysis:1. Demand of Duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act:The demand of duty was made under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, which requires a notice for determination of duty and its recovery to be issued within six months from the relevant date, extendable to five years in cases of collusion, fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement. In this case, the goods were imported on 26-7-1988 and cleared for export on 9-9-1988. The show cause notice was issued on 31-12-2002, after more than 14 years, making the demand time-barred. The Revenue's contention that the delay was due to court proceedings was rejected as the courts had permitted adjudication. Thus, the demand of Rs. 91,52,206/- under Section 28(1) was set aside as time-barred.2. Liability to Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and Consequential Imposition of Penalties:The imported goods, 6300 CPTs, were sold while in bond by SDTAL to VIL, which was argued to be in violation of the Import (Control) Order, 1955, as the goods should have remained the property of the licensee until clearance through customs. The additional licences issued to Export Houses after 1-4-88 were non-transferable, and the goods were subject to actual user conditions. The transfer of CPTs by SDTAL to VIL while still bonded was a contravention of the import policy.Additionally, the export of CPTs by VIL was not in accordance with the Export (Control) Order, 1988, which restricted the export of certain goods without a licence. The CPTs were exported without being assembled into CTVs, violating the provisions of the Export (Control) Order.The Tribunal found that both SDTAL and VIL colluded to circumvent the Exim policy, making the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d). However, the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs, considering the value addition. The penalties on SDTAL and VIL were reduced from Rs. 20 lakhs each to Rs. 5 lakhs each under Section 112(a) & 112(b).Conclusion:The duty demand of Rs. 91,52,206/- was set aside as time-barred. The confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) was upheld, but the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs, and the penalties on the appellants were reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs each. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.
TaxTMI 