Customs Duty Appeal Dismissed, Penalty Upheld

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the re-assessment of customs duty and the imposition of a penalty. The court held that the appellant's actions constituted suppression and wilful misstatement of facts, leading to a short levy of customs duty. The penalty imposed was deemed justified under the Customs Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Suppression and wilful misstatement of facts.
2. Re-assessment of customs duty.
3. Imposition of penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Suppression and Wilful Misstatement of Facts:

The appellant, a partnership firm, imported machinery under an import licence dated February 14, 1979, for the expansion of its business. The firm later transferred its business, including the import licence, to a newly incorporated company. The customs authorities issued a show cause notice on June 4, 1982, alleging that the appellant had not installed the imported machinery in its premises and had misdeclared and suppressed facts to claim the benefit of concessional customs duty under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. The appellant contended that it had informed the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports about the transfer of business and machinery. However, the customs authorities argued that the appellant did not inform them about the transfer before obtaining clearance of the machinery. The court held that the customs authorities' action was based on the contravention of the Customs Act, not the breach of import licence conditions, and thus, the appellant's argument was irrelevant.

2. Re-assessment of Customs Duty:

The appellant filed a Bill of Entry and an application for registration under the Project Import (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965, declaring that the imported machinery was for substantial expansion of its existing unit. The customs authorities assessed the duty at a concessional rate under Heading 84.66. However, since the appellant transferred the machinery to the new company instead of using it for its own expansion, the concessional rate was deemed inapplicable. The court held that this constituted a short levy of customs duty, justifying the re-assessment under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The enhanced period of five years for issuing the show cause notice was applicable due to the wilful misstatement and suppression of facts by the appellant.

3. Imposition of Penalty:

The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, which was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The court noted that the penalty was justified under Clause (o) of Section 111, as the appellant had failed to observe the conditions for concessional duty by transferring the machinery to the new company. The maximum penalty under Section 112 could be five times the duty sought to be evaded. Given the duty difference of Rs. 1,26,163.45, the imposed penalty was within the permissible limit. The court found no grounds to interfere with the penalty imposition.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the re-assessment of customs duty and the imposition of a penalty, with no order as to costs.

---