2010 (6) TMI 408 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - goods were found outside the 100% E.O.U. premises - plea of the assessees that this was only a technical violation not warranting confiscation cannot be accepted since the condition under which raw materials were imported violated Held that - assessees were not able to establish either before the Commissioner of before the Tribunal that the goods were not despatched by them to the premises from where they were detained confiscation and fine is reasonable

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation and redemption of seized goods under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of finished products and liability for duty payment.
3. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 53/97 for imported capital goods.
4. Enforcement of bond executed for duty demands and penalties.
5. Imposition of penalties on the company and Managing Director under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

1. The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of garments and imported fabric for not observing exemption conditions under Section 11(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing redemption on payment of a fine. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the violation of conditions and the reasonable fine amount in proportion to the confiscated goods' value.

2. Confiscation of finished products from various premises was ordered under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to illegal removal and non-payment of duty. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence to prove goods were not dispatched and the liability of the importer to pay the duty along with a fine in lieu of confiscation.

3. The denial of exemption for capital goods imported under bond was justified as the goods were misused without permission, leading to the demand for customs duty and interest. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating the admitted misuse warranted duty payment and penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Enforcement of the bond executed by the importer for duty demands and penalties was ordered in line with Notification No. 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-1997. Penalties were imposed on the company and its Managing Director under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, for detailed violations, which the Tribunal found justified based on the evidence presented.

5. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeals and dismissing the application for stay extension, thereby affirming the decisions on confiscation, duty payment, and penalties as per the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties imposed on both the company and its Managing Director were deemed appropriate based on the violations established in the order.