COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. TIRUPATI CIGARETTES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two stay applications and appeals have come before us and taken up for final order as the issue encompasses the interpretation of the eligibility of flexibility in imports of items permitted under the Value Based Advance Licence issued for DEEC imports made by the appellants. With the consent of both the sides the main appeals are taken up for final decision by this common order after granting waiver of entire pre -deposit in the matter.

(2.) THE issue involved in brief is that the appellants allegedly due to a clerical error made incorrect declarations on CIF values for LAM COKE when they applied for the import Licence in question. The licences were granted by the DGFT authorities and Imports were effected for LAM COKE which is admittedly a non sensitive item. No import of the other inputs permissible and reckoned for grant of the licence were effected. Another feature of the imports is that the imports did not exceed in the overall value limits since. The appellants submit that they were made aware of the error in calculating the LAM COKE values and imports were therefore restricted by them to the overall value of the licence, which they were eligible for, if they had declared the correct LAM COKE CIF values.

(3.) THE Commissioner, however, has observed that there was a deliberate attempt for import of an excess quantity of LAM COKE by using this mis -declaration in value and such an import which has been permitted without payment of proper import duty was in contravention of various provisions of the Customs Act and ITC provisions. Therefore, he concluded that since the entire Advance Licence was used for the full licences value using the facility for flexibility among non -sensitive items for import of LAM COKE, Customs duty of Rs. 78,29,500 and Rs. 37,96,720 were liable to be charged from the importers and the excess quantities of imported Coke was liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the importers were liable for Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. He, therefore, confirmed the duty demand, ordered the confiscation of goods, imposed Redemption Fine of Rs. 80,00,000 and 40,00,000 and considering the seriousness and gravity of offence, also imposed Penalty of Rs. 80,00,000 and Rs. 40,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. We have considered the submissions made and also the relevant Import Trade Control Policy and find -