2015 (5) TMI 958 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - whether or not Zinc Scrub imported by the appellant at the Port not authorised for the import of Zinc Scrub is liable to confiscation - Held that - The appellant was aware that the import of Zinc Scrub was not permissible through ICD Sanand and ignorance cannot be pleaded. Before filing of bill of entry, appellant had not requested for transhipment of imported consignment through ICD Khodiyar by which the bonafide of the appellant would have become cleare. Instead of asking for any such transhipment, appellant preferred to file Bill of Entry for Zinc Scrub at ICD Sanand which was not permissible ICD for clearance of Zinc Scrub. It is well settled proposition of law that ignorance of law is no excuse especially in the present proceedings when the appellant was a regular importer of Zinc Scrub imported through ICD Khodiyar. Accordingly, the imported goods Zinc Scrub through ICD Sanand have been correctly held to be liable to confiscation/redemption fine and imposition of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already extended sufficient benefits to the appellant by reducing the redemption fine from ₹ 4.5 lacs, imposed by the Adjudicating Authority to ₹ 2.5 lacs. Penalty imposed upon the appellant under section 12 of the Customs Act 1962 has also been substantially reduced from ₹ 2.5 lacs to ₹ 1 lac by the First Appellate Authority. In view of the above observations and the case laws relied upon by the Learned Authorised Representative, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Authority which is required to be upheld. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of Zinc Scrub imported at an unauthorized port.
2. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the First Appellate Authority.
3. Appellant's argument of ignorance regarding the unauthorized port.
4. Regular importation of Zinc Scrub at a different authorized port.
5. Legal principle of ignorance of law not being an excuse.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Zinc Scrub at a port not authorized for such imports, leading to the issue of whether confiscation was justified. The appellant argued ignorance of the restriction and requested transhipment to the authorized port. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant, being a regular importer at the authorized port, should have been aware of the restriction. The tribunal held that ignorance of the law cannot be used as an excuse, especially when the appellant was familiar with the permissible port for Zinc Scrub imports. Consequently, the goods were deemed liable for confiscation, and the penalties imposed were upheld.

2. The First Appellate Authority reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The fine was reduced from Rs. 4.5 lacs to Rs. 2.5 lacs, and the penalty was reduced from Rs. 2.5 lacs to Rs. 1 lac. This reduction was considered a sufficient benefit extended to the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by upholding the First Appellate Authority's decision.

3. The appellant's argument of ignorance regarding the unauthorized port was not accepted by the tribunal. Despite the appellant's claim of not being aware of the restriction, the tribunal emphasized that as a regular importer, the appellant should have been knowledgeable about the permissible port for Zinc Scrub imports. The failure to request transhipment to the authorized port before filing the bill of entry was viewed as a lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant.

4. The tribunal highlighted the appellant's history of regular importation of Zinc Scrub at the authorized port, emphasizing that the appellant was well aware of the legal requirements. The appellant's decision to proceed with the importation through the unauthorized port, without seeking transhipment, was considered a violation of the law, leading to the upheld penalties and confiscation.

5. The legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse was reiterated by the tribunal. Despite the appellant's claim of ignorance regarding the unauthorized port, the tribunal emphasized that being a regular importer, the appellant was expected to be aware of the legal restrictions. This principle guided the decision to uphold the penalties and confiscation, as the appellant's actions were deemed to be in violation of the law.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority, emphasizing the importance of compliance with legal requirements and rejecting ignorance as a valid defense in this case.