2002 (5) TMI 349 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against adjudication order passed by Commissioner of Customs
- Confiscation of goods declared as 'rough saphire'
- Redemption fine and penalty imposed
- Allegation of mis-declaration by the appellants
- Dispute over the FAX message from suppliers
- Legal precedents cited by both parties
- Comparison with relevant Supreme Court decisions
- Confiscation, penalty, and re-export as distinct legal actions

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the adjudication order by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the import of gems declared as 'rough saphire.' The goods were found to include cut pre-shape saphire and polish saphire, leading to confiscation and a redemption fine of Rs. one lakh, along with a penalty of Rs. 25,000. The appellants claimed the goods were wrongly sent to them and sought re-export based on a FAX message from their suppliers, alleging a mistake in the shipment. However, the Commissioner found discrepancies in the submission of the FAX message, leading to a rejection of the claim.

The Revenue contended that the appellants mis-declared the goods, emphasizing the appellants' familiarity with customs rules as regular importers. The appellants argued that they never ordered the goods in question, relying on the FAX message received from their suppliers. However, the lack of evidence regarding the FAX message's submission to the customs authorities weakened their case. The Commissioner noted the submission error regarding the FAX message date, questioning the authenticity of the documents presented.

Legal precedents were cited by both parties, with the appellants referencing the Hindustan Steel Ltd. case to argue against penalty imposition for technical breaches. They also cited the Siemens Limited case to support their stance on redemption fine in re-export scenarios. However, the absence of a specific direction by the Commissioner in the present case distinguished it from the Siemens Limited case. The Tribunal's decision in the Escorts Herion Ltd. case highlighted the distinction between confiscation, penalty imposition, and re-export as separate legal actions permitted by law.

Ultimately, the judge found no flaws in the impugned order, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The decision was based on the assessment of the facts, including the disputed FAX message submission and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the appellants' claims. The legal arguments and precedents cited were carefully considered, but the specific circumstances of the case did not warrant a reversal of the adjudication order.