2001 (3) TMI 592 - AT - Customs

Company's Liability for Confiscated Goods in Export Zone Upheld, Duty & Penalty Issues Remanded

The case involved a company operating in an Export Processing Zone facing issues regarding the liability of imported and indigenously procured goods for ... Confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalty - Duty liability Issues:Whether imported goods and goods procured indigenously without payment of duty are liable for confiscation and chargeable to Customs and Excise duty on redemption, and whether penalty is imposable on the appellant company and its directors.Analysis:1. The appeals stemmed from an Adjudication Order concerning the liability of imported goods and indigenously procured goods by a company for confiscation, Customs duty, and penalty. The company, operating in an Export Processing Zone, faced challenges due to economic factors, leading to non-viability of the project.2. The company's advocate argued that the show cause notice issued for non-utilization of goods and failure to export was premature as it was before debonding. The advocate contended that duty should be based on depreciated value as per relevant Notifications rescinded and replaced.3. The advocate further challenged the confiscation of indigenous goods under incorrect rules and highlighted the company's intent to export, justifying no confiscation or penalty. The director's lack of involvement in daily operations was also emphasized.4. The respondent contended that the company failed to meet conditions of Notifications, leading to non-compliance and absence of bona fide, justifying confiscation, duty demand, and penalty. The liability to pay duty under the executed bond was emphasized.5. The Tribunal noted the purpose of the Export Processing Zone to boost exports and exempt goods from duty. Despite the company's inability to export, significant amounts of goods were imported or procured duty-free, leading to liabilities under Customs Act. Confiscation was upheld, subject to consideration of duty on depreciated value.6. Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules did not apply to the company, leading to setting aside the confiscation of excisable goods. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to determine duty liability on depreciated value and redemption fine, with the question of penalty left for further consideration.7. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of with directions for the Adjudicating Authority to address duty liability, redemption fine, and potential penalty imposition on all appellants, ensuring a comprehensive review of the issues raised during the proceedings.