2015 (1) TMI 1207 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of the goods - declaration made in the customs does not tally with the description of the goods from physical - Held that - As there are contrary decisions produced by both the sides before me, therefore, it would be in the interest of the justice to refer the matter to the larger bench to resolve the following issue, whether the goods can be held liable for confiscation and consequently the redemption fine and penalty can be imposed on imports made through post parcel or not?

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellants in the case of imported consignments with discrepancies in declaration.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty
The appellant appealed against the impugned orders that confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty due to discrepancies between the declaration made in customs and the physical description of the imported goods. The goods were seized, valued, and held liable for confiscation, leading to the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The appellant argued that discrepancies in value declaration for goods imported through post parcels should not be considered as the importer's declaration. Citing precedents like Kuresh Laila v. C.C., Chennai and Sandhya Jewellers v. C.C., Ahmedabad, the appellant contended that redemption fine and penalty should not be imposed. On the contrary, the respondent relied on the decision in Arun Kumar v. C.C., New Delhi, where it was held that redemption fine and penalty are applicable in similar circumstances.

Issue 2: Contrary Decisions and Referral to Larger Bench
Considering the conflicting decisions presented by both sides, the tribunal decided to refer the matter to a larger bench for resolution. The key issue to be resolved by the larger bench is whether goods can be subject to confiscation, and subsequently, redemption fine and penalty can be imposed on imports made through post parcels. This decision was made in the interest of justice to ensure a consistent and authoritative interpretation of the law in such cases.

In conclusion, the judgment involved a dispute regarding the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on imported consignments due to discrepancies in the declaration. The conflicting interpretations of the law led the tribunal to refer the matter to a larger bench for a definitive resolution on the applicability of redemption fine and penalty in cases of discrepancies in value declarations for goods imported through post parcels.