2010 (4) TMI 1112 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods - the goods declared as finished leather but found to be other than finished leather, in the absence of protective coating - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - it is only the process of protective coating which was not carried out on the goods - in similar circumstances in the case of M/s.Avanthi Leathers Ltd. 2009 (7) TMI 1130 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside confiscation and imposing penalty was upheld after noting that no effort was made to export the goods in question and that the goods had been allowed to be taken back for the purpose of applying protective coating so as to make the goods conform to the definition of finished leather - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods declared as finished leather but found to be other than finished leather due to the absence of protective coating.
2. Imposition of fine and penalty by the Commissioner of Customs.
3. Comparison with similar cases of M/s. Avanthi Leathers Ltd. and M/s. Meena Leather Exports.
4. Application of Tribunal decisions in similar cases like Sri Shanmuga Prima Tannery and Vijayalakshmi Leathers to the present case.
5. Setting aside of the order of confiscation and penalty imposition.
6. Direction for the process of protective coating before exporting the goods.

The judgment addresses the issue of the confiscation of goods, initially declared as finished leather but later found to be otherwise due to the absence of protective coating. The Commissioner of Customs had imposed a fine of Rs. 7 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the appellants. However, the Vice-President, Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, noted that the only deficiency was the lack of protective coating on the goods. Referring to similar cases like M/s. Avanthi Leathers Ltd. and M/s. Meena Leather Exports, where confiscation orders were set aside after allowing the goods to be taken back for necessary processes, the Vice-President decided to follow the same approach. Citing precedents like the Tribunal's decisions in Sri Shanmuga Prima Tannery and Vijayalakshmi Leathers, it was concluded that the appellants should be directed to carry out the protective coating process before exporting the goods, leading to the allowance of the appeal and granting of consequential relief.

In light of the comparison with past cases and the application of relevant Tribunal decisions, the judgment sets a clear precedent for handling similar situations where goods are confiscated due to minor discrepancies like the absence of protective coating. The decision emphasizes the importance of allowing reasonable opportunities for rectification before resorting to confiscation and penalty imposition. The directive to carry out the necessary processes before export not only ensures compliance with regulations but also promotes fairness and practicality in dealing with such matters. The judgment highlights the significance of consistency and adherence to established legal principles in customs-related cases, ultimately upholding the rights of the appellants while maintaining the integrity of the regulatory framework.