2011 (3) TMI 823 - AT - Customs

High Seizure Value - Confiscation - Application of stay - This type of problem is caused quite often by the seizing officers who show very high seizure values to boost up their performance figures and thereafter the department also is not able to sell the goods at the price assessed by them - Where the Appellant are desirous of redeeming the goods and where the Appellant produces documents showing contemporaneous imports of identical/similar goods, the department shall open the sealed packages and verify the description of goods with the documents produced and prepare a report to state whether such values can be adopted for assessing the goods and if not why not - It may be kept in mind that the limited question at this stage is whether the values declared in the documents can be used for assessing the values of the confiscated goods and the question is not whether the confiscated goods were imported under the documents produced by the Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Seizure of goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962; Contestation of unrealistically high value of goods; Confiscation and redemption of goods under Sections 11, 120(2), and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962; Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962; Application for stay due to old and worthless goods; Submission of Bills of Entries for valuation of goods; Discrepancies in descriptions of goods; Disposal of perishable goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962; Relief granted by the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involves the seizure of various goods from the Appellant's premises, some of which are notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, shifting the burden to prove that the goods are not smuggled. The Appellant contested the high valuation of goods, requesting expert valuation and claiming the goods were imported through proper channels. The adjudicating authority confiscated and valued the goods, imposing fines and penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.

Regarding the application for stay, the Appellant sought relief due to the age and worthlessness of most goods, expressing disinterest in redeeming them. They proposed redeeming certain items based on Bills of Entries to determine accurate values. The Department, however, raised concerns about the delayed submission of Bills of Entries and discrepancies in goods' descriptions between seizure records and documents produced later.

The Tribunal noted the Department's inaction in disposing of perishable goods and the Appellant's reluctance to redeem worthless items, suggesting inflated valuations. Recognizing the seizing officers' role in exaggerating seizure values, the Tribunal ordered the Department to take over worthless goods and allowed redemption for items with documented import records. The Tribunal emphasized verifying goods' descriptions against documents and sampling to determine appropriate values for redemption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the Appellant to inform the Department of goods they do not wish to redeem for prompt disposal, while facilitating the redemption process for items with supporting import documents. The Tribunal aimed to establish a fair redemption amount based on verified values, samples, and submitted documents, ensuring a balanced approach to resolving the valuation and redemption issues in the case.