2011 (9) TMI 664 - HC - Customs

STPI imported 113 Computer systems - 76 shifted to license warehouse and 37 were shifted to unlicensed premises at Rajajingar - Redemption fine of 60,000 was imposed and penalty of 1,00,000 were imposed - Appellate authority reduced fine - Held That - Assessee were not justified in shifting 37 computers merly on the ground that he has filed an application requesting for recognising the same as private bonded warehouse. There is a violation of law.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Tribunal's decision upholding Commissioner (Appeals) order and setting aside original authority's order for confiscation and penalty regarding imported capital goods.
- Assessee's violation of Customs Act by shifting goods to unlicensed premises.
- Reduction of fine by Appellate Authority.
- Dispute over duty demand.
- Premises later licensed as private bonded warehouse.
- Revenue's appeal against Appellate Authority's decision.

Analysis:
The High Court heard the appeal challenging the Tribunal's decision upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order and setting aside the original authority's order for confiscation and penalty related to the Assessee's imported capital goods. The Assessee, a STPI unit, had imported computer systems duty-free under a scheme but shifted some to unlicensed premises, leading to confiscation and imposition of penalty. The Appellate Authority upheld the confiscation and penalties but reduced the fine considering the circumstances. However, the duty demand was set aside as the goods were used for the intended export purpose. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing the violation was technical. The High Court noted the violation but found no mala fide intent and upheld the relief granted by the authorities, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The key issue revolved around the Assessee's violation of the Customs Act by shifting imported goods to an unlicensed premises. Despite subsequent licensing of the premises as a private bonded warehouse, the initial violation was deemed unjustified. The Court acknowledged the lack of misuse of the goods and the eventual recognition of the premises as a bonded warehouse. The violation was seen as technical, without malicious intent, and both authorities granting relief to the Assessee. Consequently, the High Court found no justification to interfere with the decision to dismiss the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the confiscation and penalties imposed on the Assessee for violating the Customs Act. The Court emphasized the lack of mala fide intent in the violation and the subsequent recognition of the premises as a private bonded warehouse. The technical nature of the violation, coupled with the relief granted by the authorities, led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to customs regulations while considering the circumstances and intent behind any violations.