2011 (5) TMI 68 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - Imported goods - Rule 3(k), Rule 5 & 6 - The contention of the assessee that they do not import batteries for the purpose of sale but for captive consumption (for UPS) and that it has been verified by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Perungudi Range that goods imported under the six Bills of Entry,have been received by the assessees and are still available in their warehouse premises - Therefore they are not required to obtain one time registration with the Ministry of Environment and Forests, in the light of Rule 3(k), Rule 5 & 6 - Hence, set aside the impugned order and allow the appealin favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of lead acid batteries for non-submission of registration certificate from the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
2. Reduction of fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 1: Confiscation of lead acid batteries for non-submission of registration certificate from the Ministry of Environment and Forests

The impugned order upheld the confiscation of lead acid batteries valued at Rs.27,75,155/- imported by the appellants under 6 Bills of Entry, citing non-submission of registration certificate from the Ministry of Environment and Forests under Rule 6 of the Batteries (Management & Handling) Rules, 2001. The definition of importer under Rule 3(k) includes a person who imports new lead acid batteries for sale. However, the appellants argued that they imported batteries for captive consumption (for UPS) and not for sale. The Superintendent of Central Excise verified that the imported goods were received by the appellants and were in their warehouse premises. Considering Rule 3(k), Rule 5, and Rule 6, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' contention and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

Issue 2: Reduction of fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962

In addition to confiscation, the Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 125 and the penalty to Rs.60,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, upon setting aside the confiscation order, the Tribunal did not delve into the details of the fine and penalty reduction as the primary issue of confiscation was resolved in favor of the appellants. Therefore, the reduction of fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112 was not discussed further in the judgment.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI highlights the key issues of confiscation of lead acid batteries and the subsequent reduction of fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the relevant rules and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellants.