2007 (3) TMI 46 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and Penalty Revenue contended that appellant could not used imported goods for manufacture of finished god and accordingly imposed penalty Authority rejected revenue contention and set aside the penalty

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of consignments and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act based on Order-in-Original dated 29-4-2005.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against an Order-in-Original that confiscated consignments and imposed penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The consignments in question were "100% Polyester Dyed Piled Fabrics" sold by an indenting agent to another party on a high sea purchase basis. The Revenue authorities issued a show cause notice after seizing the consignment, alleging that the importing party did not have the right to use the goods in their 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) for manufacturing finished goods. The adjudicating authority concluded that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed penalties on the appellants.

The appellants argued that the goods were not prohibited for application under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. They contended that since the importing party was a 100% EOU with the necessary license to import materials for manufacturing export goods, the filing of the Bill of Entry under a specific notification could not be faulted. They further argued that since the confiscation under Section 111(d) was in doubt, no penalties should be imposed.

On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the importing party had admitted that the goods were not required for manufacturing export goods and had diverted similar goods into the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) previously. They relied on this to justify the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.

After considering the submissions and perusing the record, the Tribunal noted that the importing party was indeed a 100% EOU with the right to import goods without duty payment for manufacturing in their unit. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's argument that filing the Bill of Entry under a specific notification made the goods prohibited. The Tribunal highlighted that goods are only liable for confiscation if they are prohibited under the Customs Act or any other law, and there were no findings that the goods in question were prohibited. The Tribunal also referenced a previous decision supporting the import of goods by a 100% EOU.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act as they were not prohibited goods. Therefore, the order confiscating the goods was set aside, and since confiscation was overturned, the question of imposing penalties under Section 112 did not arise. As a result, all the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.