1998 (9) TMI 488 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of order-in-original passed by the Collector of Customs, Mumbai regarding the clearance of imported goods with a suspected forged import license.
2. Appeal by the Commissioner of Customs seeking to enhance the redemption fine imposed on the Respondent.
3. Cross-objection by the Respondent against the penalty imposed.

Issue 1 - Review of Order-In-Original:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai was filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, seeking a review of the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Customs. The case involved the importation of Low Carbon Mild Steel defective sheets in coils coated with aluminum alloy from Australia. The import license used for clearance was suspected to be forged, leading to an investigation by the Custom House. It was revealed that the license had been transferred through multiple entities, with the final transfer to the Respondent being questioned for its validity. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued for the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and a fine was imposed on the Respondent.

Issue 2 - Appeal for Enhancement of Redemption Fine:
The Commissioner of Customs had imposed a redemption fine and a penalty on the Respondent. The appeal sought to enhance the redemption fine due to the discrepancy between the redemption fine amount and the CIF value of the goods. The Commissioner's reasoning for the lower redemption fine was based on factors such as demurrage incurred over a longer period, which was supported by a Tribunal decision. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's order regarding the redemption fine and rejected the department's appeal.

Issue 3 - Cross-objection Against Penalty Imposed:
The Respondent filed a cross-objection against the penalty imposed, arguing that they had acquired the import license in good faith from a legitimate source. The Respondent contended that the irregularity in the transferred letters of the license was not their fault, and the penalty should be set aside. However, the Tribunal held that despite the genuine acquisition of the license, the irregularity in the license transfer rendered the import unauthorized. The Tribunal considered the penalty imposed in light of the leniency shown in the redemption fine and concluded that no modification in the quantum of penalty was warranted. Thus, the appeal and the cross-objection were disposed of accordingly.