2007 (5) TMI 3 - SC - Customs

Confiscation Department contended that appellants were indulge in confiscation of consignment and accordingly redemption fine and penalty affix on him Authority find that confiscation related to only parts of goods.

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the second adjudication and confiscation order.
2. Classification and valuation of the imported goods.
3. Applicability of transaction value under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules.
4. Legitimacy of the penalties imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Second Adjudication and Confiscation Order:
The appellants contended that the goods had already been subjected to adjudication once before and could not be subjected to adjudication again. The CEGAT noted that the basis for this contention was a rubber stamp on the bill of entry indicating the result of adjudication. However, neither the assessee nor the revenue could produce the adjudication order. The CEGAT concluded that the rubber stamp only indicated a preliminary result pending a formal order. The CEGAT found that only part of the consignment had been subjected to adjudication earlier, and thus, the rest of the consignment could be subjected to confiscation subsequently. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the confiscation of only one part and not the whole consignment was a categorical finding by the CEGAT.

2. Classification and Valuation of the Imported Goods:
The Collector of Customs had ordered the confiscation of the consignment under clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, and enhanced the assessable value of the respirators and earplugs. The appellants argued that the goods were described as "moulded plastic parts" and "plastic fabricated cups" because they did not conform to the local standards in the USA and were given away for distribution in India. The CEGAT and the Supreme Court found that the goods were indeed respirators and earplugs, capable of being used as such, and were deliberately mis-declared to avoid their liability to confiscation and to pay duty. The goods were correctly classified as consumer goods and not as parts of plastic.

3. Applicability of Transaction Value under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules:
The appellants argued that the transaction value should be accepted. The CEGAT noted that the question of acceptance of transaction value would not arise where the goods are supplied free of charge, as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. It was accepted by the appellant before the Commissioner that the goods were received free. The Supreme Court upheld the CEGAT's view that the goods were mis-declared both regarding their identity and their value deliberately to avoid their liability to confiscation and to pay duty.

4. Legitimacy of the Penalties Imposed:
The Collector had imposed penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act on Jayant Maru and Himant Tank. The CEGAT upheld the penalties, noting that the goods were deliberately mis-declared. However, the penalty on Himant Tank was set aside as he was residing in the U.S. and the provisions of the Act would not apply to him. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the penalties imposed on Jayant Maru, as the mis-declaration was deliberate and not done unknowingly or innocently.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the order of the CEGAT. The confiscation of the goods under clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act was rightly upheld by the CEGAT. The penalties imposed on Jayant Maru were also upheld, while the penalty on Himant Tank was set aside. The appeals were dismissed with costs made easy.

← Previous Next →