TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inless steel drums' valued at Rs. 1,29,88,223 under section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962, confiscation of the same with option to redeem on payment of Rs. 10,00,000, imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,00,000 on the importer, M/s Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd, and Rs. 5,00,000 on S/Shri Vinod Jain and Rakesh Jain under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. Proceedings were dropped against other notices against which Revenue is in appeal. 2. The appellant-importer, formerly known as M/s Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd, had sourced 3722 metric tons of 'refined bleached deodorized (RBD) palm oil' in ten consignments between December 1978 and April 1979 which were shipped in 'stainless steel drums' that were not eligible for exemption provided for in notification no.184/76-Cus dated 2nd August 1976; a separate proceeding was initiated for the import of these containers without production of a valid licence mandated in the EXIM Policy AM 1979 for consumer goods in Appendix 3. During search, 19961 of these drums were recovered against the 19590 that had been imported and test report of the Chemical Examiner indicated these to be composed of 'non-magnetic stainless steel' that were liable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate declaration relating to cost of packaging material. Understandably, packing material which is commonly used for products are, for the purpose of value, not distinguishable from the product contained therein and is a consequence of it being of no further use in relation to the goods contained therein. Though the impugned order may have referred to the stringent conditions prescribed in the public notice, to the extent that reliance has been placed only on that part of the public notice that mirrors the conditions of exemption, such challenge is not relevant. Accordingly, we propose to discard any findings that rely exclusively upon the public notice. 6. It is further contended by Learned Counsel that reliance has been placed on documents that were not before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that statements/averments of various individuals and those trading in RBD palmolein should have been subject to cross-examination. In view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we propose to discard any findings that did rely exclusively on such materials. 7. Learned Counsel also claims that the bar of limitation applies as there has been no suppression on their part. That, accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disposal as waste. That intent is amply evident in the prescription that value of the goods should include the value of packaging material and the proscription of further usage; the expressions in the notification may be amenable to subjective interpretation but a harmonious construction in the context of revenue being forgone would clearly establish that the scope of exemption is limited to such packaging as are trashed after the goods are consumed. That the importer took care to store the 'stainless steel drums' at premises of reliable persons and that the material did command premium in a scarcity-drain market is sufficient to establish that the 'stainless steel drums' are not packaging material but separate and distinct goods that should be subject to assessment and duty. We must note here that we have not placed any reliance on the public notice or such of its prescriptions as are not envisaged in the notification. 11. With the 'stainless steel drums' being ineligible for exemption, they are to be subject to assessment for appropriate duty. It is the contention of Learned Counsel that the impugned order has not complied with the statutory prescriptions relating to valuation a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be disposed off in accordance with the law. 13. Learned Counsel for appellant has challenged the survival of the notices on the ground that there has been no suppression on their part. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vadalia Brothers v. Collector of Customs [1990 (48) ELT 317 (Tribunal). We note that the 'less charge notices' had been issued by Assistant Collector of Customs, Group III, New Customs House, Bombay (as it then was) in October 1979. The jurisdiction of the notice issuing authority to invoke the extended period under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 is a pre-requisite that must bear scrutiny. Since the 'less charge notices' are required to be disposed off as directed supra, the plea of bar of limitation may also be dealt with along with it. 14. The impugned order has concerned itself primarily with the proposal to confiscate the 'stainless steel drums' and for imposition of penalty under section 111 and section 112 respectively of Customs Act, 1962. With our finding supra on duty liability devolving on the packaging material consequent upon ineligibility for exemption, it necessarily follows that compliance with the regime of th....