2002 (4) TMI 765 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of CD Roms under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of CD Roms under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
- The case involved the confiscation of CD Roms valued at Rs. 1.7 lakh and the imposition of penalties on the appellant-company and its Director. The Customs authorities seized the goods as the appellant failed to provide legal evidence of possession/importation. The Commissioner accepted the explanation for Halogen Lamps but confiscated the CD Roms as the appellant's explanation was found false during investigation.
- The impugned order observed that the appellant failed to prove the bona fide of the goods and shifted the onus to them. The invoices submitted were found to be false, and the company from which the goods were allegedly purchased did not exist. The appellant's failure to prove the goods were not smuggled led to their confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
- The appellant contended that confiscation under Section 111(d) was not legal as there was no violation of any prohibition under the Customs Act or any other law. They argued that as the CD Roms were under Open General Licence (OGL), there was no prohibition in force, making confiscation unjustified.
- The learned SDR argued that the goods were imported in violation of the prohibition under the Customs Act, relating to import only on filing of declaration and documents for clearance and payment of duty. He maintained that the confiscation and penalty were justified due to the false explanation provided by the appellant.

2. Judgment:
- The Tribunal found that confiscation under Section 111(d) was not justified as there was no finding of goods being under any prohibition to attract confiscation. The only prohibition mentioned was related to the violation of the Exim Policy, which did not apply to the CD Roms. Since the goods were not liable for confiscation, the penalty imposed was deemed unsustainable.
- Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.