Importer attribution for customs limitation strengthened a prima facie case for stay and waiver of duty demand

For limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, suppression or wrong declaration with intent to evade duty must be attributable to the importer. On the facts noted, the non-availment of Modvat credit declaration had been made by the original licence holder, not by the importing appellants, so the limitation objection was treated as prima facie sustainable. The record also noted that no penalty had been imposed on the appellants, supporting the request for interim relief. On that basis, the application was allowed on limitation and unconditional stay and waiver of the duty demand were granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was prima facie hit by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 where the alleged misdeclaration was made by the original licence holder and not by the importer, and whether stay and waiver of duty should be granted.

Analysis: The order records a prima facie view that, for the purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, suppression or wrong declaration with intent to evade duty must be attributable to the importer. Since the declaration regarding non-availment of Modvat credit was made by the first licence holder and not by the appellants who imported the goods, the limitation objection was treated as having prima facie force. It was also noted that no penalty had been imposed on the appellants.

Conclusion: The application was allowed on limitation, and unconditional stay and waiver of the duty demand were granted.

---