Duty adjustment procedure under relaxed rules: non-compliance may justify penalty, but credit availability can defeat or reduce it.

Rule 173-PP(5) permitted duty adjustment through a relaxed procedure where duty could not be determined at removal, but compliance with the Collector's directions on weekly deposits, provisional debit entries and monthly adjustment remained necessary. On the facts discussed, failure to follow that procedure attracted penalty under Rule 173-Q. Where sufficient credit remained in the PLA, penalty was not justified and was deleted. In the connected matters, the assessee had not maintained sufficient balance or complied with the prescribed procedure, amounting to removal of goods without payment of duty for the relevant period, but the circumstances showed only temporary evasion and called for substantial reduction rather than the higher penalties originally imposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's failure to follow the relaxed procedure for duty adjustment under Rule 173-PP(5) justified the penalties imposed under Rule 173-Q, and whether the penalty required reduction in the connected appeals.

Analysis: The relaxed procedure under Rule 173-PP(5) required the assessee, where duty could not be determined at the time of removal, to make duty adjustment in the manner and at the time directed by the Collector. On the facts found, the assessee did not strictly follow the prescribed procedure in relation to weekly deposits, provisional debit entries, and final monthly adjustment. However, the Tribunal distinguished the appeals on their facts. In one appeal, sufficient credit remained in the PLA and there was no justification for penalty. In the other appeals, the assessee had failed to maintain sufficient balance and had not complied with the relaxed procedure, which amounted to removal of goods without payment of duty for the relevant period, though the circumstances showed only temporary evasion and not conduct warranting the higher penalties originally imposed.

Conclusion: Penalty was deleted in one appeal and substantially reduced in the other appeals; the assessee succeeded in part.

---