2004 (11) TMI 486 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. for Audio CD Roms and blank CD Roms.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalties.
3. Interpretation of mis-declaration and intention to import goods.
4. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellants contested the denial of exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. for 500 nos. of Audio CD Roms and 500 nos. of blank CD Roms. The Commissioner found that these goods were not ordered for import by the appellants and were sent by mistake. However, the Commissioner granted the benefit of the Notification for a large quantity of CD Roms, except the disputed quantity. The appellants argued that there was no deliberate mis-declaration or intention to import the goods, as they had requested re-export even before the adjudicating authority's order. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. v. CCE to argue against the imposition of confiscation, fine, and penalty when no mis-declaration was proven.

Issue 2: The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the goods and imposed a fine of Rs. 3,00,000 along with individual penalties on the importer and the Directors. The appellants contended that since there was no mis-declaration and the goods were ordered for re-export, the fines and penalties should not be levied. The Tribunal noted that the revenue failed to establish mis-declaration, and following the precedent set by the Apex Court in the Northern Plastic Ltd. case, the fine and penalty were deemed not applicable, leading to the appeals being allowed.

Issue 3: The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of mis-declaration and the intention to import goods. The appellants maintained that they did not intend to import the disputed goods and had promptly requested re-export upon discovering the error. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the absence of mis-declaration and the proactive steps taken by the appellants supported their case against the imposition of fines and penalties.

Issue 4: The Tribunal considered previous judgments, including the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. v. CCE, to determine the applicability of fines and penalties in cases where goods were not intended for import and there was no mis-declaration. By aligning with the principles established in these precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the fines and penalties imposed by the Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case centered on the lack of mis-declaration, the absence of intent to import the disputed goods, and the proactive measures taken by the appellants for re-export. By applying legal precedents and interpreting the relevant Notification, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the fines and penalties imposed by the Commissioner.