Tribunal upholds penalties for mis-declaration by company, but spares Managing Director and ex-employee.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal of M/s Yakult Danone India (P) Ltd., confirming the classification of imported machinery under their respective HS codes. Penalties on the company were upheld for intentional mis-declaration, but penalties on the Managing Director and ex-employee were set aside due to lack of direct involvement. The imported goods were ordered to be confiscated with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine, emphasizing the importance of accurate classification and declaration to prevent duty evasion.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported machinery.
2. Alleged mis-declaration and manipulation of HS codes.
3. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE.
4. Imposition of penalties on the company and individuals.
5. Confiscation of imported goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Machinery:
The primary issue was whether the imported machinery by M/s Yakult Danone India (P) Ltd. should be classified under HS code 8434 as 'Dairy Machines' or under different individual headings as per their specific functions. The investigation revealed that the machinery imported in the 2nd and 3rd consignments were mis-declared as 'Dairy Machines' to avail exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. The machinery included tanks, sterilizers, filling machines, and other equipment, which were found to be classifiable under various headings such as 84798200, 842230, 8477, and not under 8434.

2. Alleged Mis-declaration and Manipulation of HS Codes:
The investigation found that the original 'Specification of Production Equipment' (SPE) sheets provided by the supplier, M/s Yakult Honsha Co. Ltd., Japan, listed HS codes that were altered by the appellant to reflect HS code 8434, thereby mis-declaring the machinery as 'Dairy Machines'. This alteration was done by the appellant’s employees, including Mr. Anil Choudhary, under the direction of the company's management and consultants.

3. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE:
The appellant argued that the machinery was correctly classified under HS code 8434 and thus eligible for exemption. They relied on various certificates and expert opinions to support their claim. However, the tribunal found that the machinery did not meet the criteria for classification under 8434 as per the HSN Explanatory Notes and relevant chapter notes. The machinery was intended for various functions like mixing, sterilizing, filling, and packing, which did not qualify as 'Dairy Machines' under the said notification.

4. Imposition of Penalties on the Company and Individuals:
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on M/s Yakult Danone India (P) Ltd., its Managing Director, Mr. Kiyoshi Tatsui Oike, and ex-employee Mr. Anil Choudhary. The tribunal upheld the penalty on the company, finding that the mis-declaration and manipulation were intentional and aimed at evading duty. However, the penalties on Mr. Oike and Mr. Choudhary were set aside. The tribunal found that Mr. Oike was not directly involved in the manipulation and that Mr. Choudhary acted under the company's directions without personal gain.

5. Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The imported goods were ordered to be confiscated with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine. The tribunal upheld this decision, noting the intentional mis-declaration and manipulation of documents to evade customs duty.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal of M/s Yakult Danone India (P) Ltd., confirming the classification of the imported machinery under their respective HS codes and upholding the demand for duty and penalties. The appeals of Mr. Kiyoshi Tatsui Oike and Mr. Anil Choudhary were allowed, setting aside the penalties imposed on them due to lack of direct involvement and personal gain. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate classification and declaration of imported goods to prevent evasion of duties.

---