2015 (6) TMI 1079 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of goods - confiscation of the goods with an option to pay redemption fine of ₹ 3,00,000/- - imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,78,000/- - heavy melting scrap - purchase of goods on high seas sales basis in U.A.E - Held that - the appellant had imported the impugned goods based on the description of the goods and other particulars mentioned in the import documents. The Bill of Entry was filed by the appellant describing the goods as heavy melting scrap - the charge of mis-declaration unsustainable. The appellant accepted the examination report furnished by the Customs Department that the impugned goods were seamless pipes, which were restricted for import under para 2.17 of FTP - confiscation of the impugned goods with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and imposition of penalty is proper and justified but considering the overall facts and circumstances and especially in view of the fact that there is no mis-declaration by the appellant, the option of redemption fine and imposition of penalty can be reduced in the interest of justice. - impugned order modified to the extent of reducing the redemption fine and imposition of personal penalty to ₹ 50,000/- and ₹ 30,000/- respectively - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of penalty

In this case, the appellant imported heavy melting scrap, which was found to be old, used material and restricted under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The Customs Department discovered the discrepancy during examination and imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 3 lakhs along with a penalty of &8377; 1,78,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that there was no mis-declaration as the goods were described accurately in the import documents. The Tribunal acknowledged the description in the Bill of Entry but noted that the imported goods were actually seamless pipes, restricted under the FTP. Consequently, the confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty were deemed justified. However, considering the absence of mis-declaration, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to &8377; 50,000 and the personal penalty to &8377; 30,000 in the interest of justice.

This judgment addresses the issue of mis-declaration of imported goods and the subsequent confiscation and penalties imposed. The Tribunal found that while the appellant accurately described the goods as heavy melting scrap in the import documents, the actual nature of the goods was different - seamless pipes, which were restricted under the Foreign Trade Policy. Despite the lack of mis-declaration, the Tribunal deemed the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties justified due to the restricted nature of the imported goods. However, in the interest of justice and considering the overall circumstances, the Tribunal decided to reduce the redemption fine and personal penalty significantly.

The case involved a dispute regarding the mis-declaration of imported goods and the consequent actions taken by the Customs Department. The appellant argued that there was no mis-declaration as the goods were accurately described in the import documents. The Tribunal acknowledged the description provided by the appellant but noted that the actual nature of the goods imported was different from what was declared. Despite finding no intentional mis-declaration, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties due to the restricted nature of the imported goods. However, considering the lack of deliberate mis-declaration, the Tribunal decided to reduce the redemption fine and personal penalty to &8377; 50,000 and &8377; 30,000, respectively, in the interest of justice and fairness.