2010 (10) TMI 413 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - Goods are imported without licence - Demand - the orders of adjudication confiscating the goods under Section 111(d) of the Act were not challenged by any of these appellants - whether the appellate Commissioner s direction for enhancement of the quanta of redemption fines and for imposition of penalties on these appellants under Section 112(a) of the Act is legally sustainable or not - prior to and after the period of imports, the item has always been freely importable - appellants to be actual users of the goods imported by them - Decided in the favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation of imported goods, imposition of penalties, and enhancement of redemption fines.

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the importation of non-asbestos gasket material without a specific license during a restricted period. The original authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with an option for redemption against a fine but refrained from imposing any penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. The department filed appeals seeking enhancement of fines and imposition of penalties, which were granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of frivolous determination of fines and the need for penalties once goods were liable to confiscation. The cases were remanded to the original authority for reconsideration.

In the present appeals, the appellants sought to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and restore the original orders with no penalty. They also attempted to challenge the confiscation. However, the Tribunal noted that since the appellants did not challenge the orders of adjudication confiscating the goods, they could not contest the confiscation. The only issue left for consideration was the legality of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s direction for enhancing redemption fines and imposing penalties. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by remanding the case to the original authority after a certain date and that the power of remand was not available. Moreover, the goods imported were restricted during the period but freely importable before and after. The original authority had correctly determined that the appellants were actual users of the goods and refrained from imposing penalties under Section 112. The Tribunal concluded that there was no valid ground to interfere with the original authority's decision and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order.

In the final decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeals to the extent that the impugned order was set aside concerning the present appellants, and the original orders were restored.