2011 (6) TMI 297 - AT - Customs

Penalty - Imposition of redemption fine on goods held liable to confiscation - Merely because country of origin in respect of the consignments covered by 6 bills of entry was mis-declared, no presumption can be raised that there was under-declaration of weight in respect of the consignments in the invoices/packing lists - Held that - departmental appeal seeking imposition of redemption fine on goods held liable for confiscation is also without merits. The question of granting option of redemption of goods which are not available for seizure /confiscation does not arise, issue academic in nature, appeal allowed on merit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of the Commissioner regarding misdeclaration of weight in import consignments.
2. Challenge to the demand of duty, interest, and penalty by the importer.
3. Department's appeal for imposition of redemption fine on goods held liable for confiscation.
4. Introduction of additional evidence and weighment slips in the proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding misdeclaration of weight in import consignments of acrylic staple fiber. The Commissioner's order proposed confiscation of goods, demand of differential duty, and imposition of penalty. The importer contested the order, arguing that physical weighment was conducted during assessment, supported by weighment slips and examination reports. They also raised concerns about the limitation period for the demand.

2. The importer challenged the demand of duty, interest, and penalty on various grounds. They argued that the goods were physically weighed, weighment slips were signed by customs officers, and there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the weighment slips. Additionally, they claimed that the declared value was correct, and the demand was time-barred. The importer also questioned the issuance of notices on a piecemeal basis.

3. The department sought imposition of redemption fine on goods held liable for confiscation. They supported their claim by stating that the importer mis-declared the weight of goods to evade customs duty, committing fraud with the government exchequer. The department highlighted discrepancies in the weight declarations and emphasized the deliberate attempt to evade duty.

4. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and examined the records related to the import consignments. They found that the importer had filed necessary documents, and the examination reports indicated the correctness of the weight ascertained. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the gross weights mentioned in various documents and the concept of gross weight and net weight in the consignments. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the importer, rejecting the department's appeal for imposition of redemption fine.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's findings and decision in the case.