2010 (3) TMI 736 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty - Misdeclaration and misdescription of the imported goods - The respondent is a 100% Export Oriented Unit licensed for the manufacture and export of Recycled Metal Scrap Ingots and Metal Alloys etc. - The respondent had imported used, old and damaged transformers which were nothing but scrap - Manufacture of Recycled Metal Scrap, in relation to its business the goods are nothing but scrap as the same have to be recycled to produce Recycled Metal Scrap. The respondent has no use for old, used and damaged transformers in such form, as the same have to be recycled to produce Metal Scrap - The respondent has no use for old, used and damaged transformers in such form, as the same have to be recycled to produce Metal Scrap - It is not even the case of the revenue that the old, used and damaged transformers are being repaired and used as such. - Tribunal, the adjudicating authority has not confirmed any demand of duty - Hence, respondent was eligible to import old/used/damaged transformers. Thus , the respondent assessee was not going to benefit on account of undervaluation or misdeclaration . Held that the Tribunal justified in setting aside the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty rendered on account of violation of provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - The appeal is, dismissed in absence of any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appellant-revenue contested the order dated 12th September 2008 made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, raising two key questions. Firstly, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that confiscation of goods and penalty imposition on the respondent-importer were unwarranted despite undisputed misdeclaration and violation of Customs Act, 1962. Secondly, whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the confiscation of goods and penalty imposition due to misdeclaration and misdescription of imported goods by the respondent-importer. The respondent, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, imported old transformers declared as waste and scrap, seeking duty exemption. The Department alleged the goods were not scrap but old transformers, leading to a show cause notice, confiscation, and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent appealed, ultimately succeeding before the Tribunal.

The Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue argued that correct goods declaration is mandatory for duty assessment, regardless of importability. The Tribunal, citing a previous case, ruled in favor of the respondent, stating the imported transformers were essentially scrap, not new or usable. Since no duty was payable on the consignment, undervaluation findings were deemed irrelevant. The respondent's business involved recycling metal scrap, making the transformers functionally scrap. The Tribunal noted no duty demand against the respondent, indicating no benefit from undervaluation or misdeclaration. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal due to the absence of legal infirmity or substantial question of law.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order on confiscation and penalty imposition under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment emphasized the nature of the imported goods as scrap in the context of the respondent's recycling business, highlighting the lack of duty payable and the absence of benefit from misdeclaration or undervaluation. The legal arguments put forth by the appellant-revenue were deemed insufficient to overturn the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.