2017 (1) TMI 1434 - AT - Customs

Duty has been confirmed without mentioning the section under which that is confirmed - the elaboration in the order shows that demand having arisen under Section 28, that is confirmed - Held that - mere non-mentioning of provision of law does not make the order fatal. Therefore adjudication order is held to have been confirmed under Section 28 (2) of the Customs Act - the goods imported under bond are not absolute clearance but conditional clearance. Therefore there is concurrent liability in respect of goods cleared under bond attaching an obligation to be fulfilled. Accordingly, redemption fine is imposable when the confiscation was ordered. For imposition of redemption fine, matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Duty liability confirmation under Section 28 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962; Imposition of redemption fine for goods imported under bond.

Issue 1: Duty liability confirmation under Section 28 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962
The judgment addresses the issue of duty liability confirmation under Section 28 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Tribunal notes that while the duty was confirmed without specifying the section in the adjudication order, the demand arose under Section 28. Referring to the case of CCE Calcutta Vs Pradyumna Steel Ltd., the Tribunal holds that the mere omission of the provision of law does not invalidate the order. Consequently, the duty liability is deemed to have been confirmed under Section 28 (2) of the Customs Act.

Issue 2: Imposition of redemption fine for goods imported under bond
The judgment delves into the imposition of a redemption fine for goods imported under bond. The Tribunal acknowledges the Revenue's argument that goods imported under bond entail a continuous obligation for the importer to fulfill bond conditions. It clarifies that such imports do not constitute absolute clearance but conditional clearance, thereby imposing a concurrent liability on goods cleared under bond. The Tribunal remands the matter to the adjudicating authority for the imposition of a redemption fine, emphasizing the need for appropriate notice, a fresh hearing of the appellant, and a comprehensive order taking into account defense plea, law, and evidence.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allows the Revenue's appeal partially, specifically concerning the imposition of the redemption fine for goods imported under bond. The judgment provides clarity on the duty liability confirmation under Section 28 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and underscores the continuous obligation and conditional nature of goods cleared under bond, necessitating the imposition of a redemption fine in such cases.