2009 (3) TMI 479 - AT - Customs

CESTAT New Delhi: Penalties & duty demand set aside for glass imports, one consignment remitted for fresh consideration

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, set aside penalties and the duty demand for 8 consignments of glass imported by M/s. Allied Glasses Pvt. Ltd., ... Demand-Limitation- The main appellant, M/s. Allied Glasses Pvt. Ltd. imported 9 consignments and filed Bills of Entry declaring the items as Glazing Glass and claiming classification under Chapter Heading 7005 and produced DFRC licence to clear the same. Held that- As regards the consignment covered by the Bill of Entry No. 110490 dated 10-11-2003, which was subject matter of seizure and confiscation, we observe that all the issues have to be considered afresh by the Commissioner on merits as well as on limitation after taking into account the above submission made by both sides. To enable the same, we remit the matter to the Commissioner for issue of fresh order after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. We offer no comments on merits of the case in respect of this consignment. All the appeals are disposed of by setting aside the penalties imposed on all the appellants and setting aside the demand relating to 8 consignments and remitting the issues relating to the seized consignment for fresh consideration in the above terms. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, consisting of Members M. Veeraiyan and P.K. Das, heard an appeal from M/s. Allied Glasses Pvt. Ltd. arising from Order-in-Original No. 91/2005. The company imported ICC consignments of glass declared as Glazing Glass under Chapter Heading 7005, supported by DFRC licenses. While 8 consignments were cleared without dispute, the 9th was seized for misdeclaration, leading to a demand for duty, fines, and penalties.The appellant argued that the imported glass was patent Glazed Glass usable for glazing doors and windows, covered by the DFRC license. They contended that the extended time limit for demanding duty did not apply. The advocate also emphasized the transferability of the license and cited relevant circulars.The SDR highlighted policy provisions under the DFRC scheme, stating that the imported float glass did not correspond to the DFRC license and was not usable for glazing leather. He referenced a High Court decision emphasizing the duty of Customs Authorities to verify compliance with licenses.The Tribunal observed that the 8 cleared consignments were declared as Glazed Glass, supported by manufacturer invoices invoices and DFRC licenses, with no objection from Customs Officers.. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal found the demand for these consignments to be time-barred and set aside penalties. The 9th consignment was remitted for fresh consideration by the Commissioner.Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside penalties, demand for 8 consignments, and remitted the issues related to the seized consignment for further review. The order was pronounced on 2nd March 2009.