2011 (6) TMI 585 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - imported laser printers and parts - classified the printers under Heading No. 8471.60 of the Customs Tariff. The importer sought exemption from MRP (Maximum Retail Price) based CVD on the ground that they are the actual users of the goods - Commissioner also confiscated the goods under importation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act Held that - Customs assessed the goods to CVD on MRP basis, which importer accepted and discharged the liability accordingly. Merely because the appellant had sought an exemption from RSP based assessment in respect of CVD, it does not amount to any misdeclaration on the part of the importer. Therefore, in the instant case, the provisions of Section 111(m) are not attracted at all, confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not justified and consequential imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the said Customs Act, is also not correct, set aside the confiscation and consequent imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act is also not sustainable and is set aside, appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge against confiscation of goods under importation
- Challenge against imposition of fine and penalty

Analysis:
- The appellant imported laser printers and parts, classified under Heading No. 8471.60 of the Customs Tariff, seeking exemption from CVD based on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) as actual users. However, goods were found in pre-packed condition with declared MRP, making them liable for Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) based on retail sale price. The differential duty on MRP basis was confirmed, leading to confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem on payment of a fine and imposition of penalty.

- The appellant challenged only the confiscation, fine, and penalty, not the assessment. The appellant argued that Section 111(m) applies when goods do not correspond with the entry made, but they correctly declared the goods and their value, which was accepted by Customs. The dispute arose over CVD assessment basis, not misdeclaration. The appellant's exemption claim from MRP-based assessment did not warrant confiscation, fine, or penalty.

- The Department argued that the appellant's exemption claim violated Section 111(m), justifying confiscation, fine, and penalty. However, the Tribunal noted that Section 111(m) applies when goods do not correspond with the entry, which was not the case here. The dispute was over CVD computation basis, not misdeclaration. The Tribunal found no grounds for confiscation, fine, or penalty and set them aside. Penalty under Section 112(a) is only applicable when goods are liable for confiscation, which was not the situation here.

- The Tribunal concluded that confiscation under Section 111(m) was unjustified, leading to setting aside of the confiscation, fine, and penalty. Since the confiscation was not warranted, the penalty under Section 112(a) was also not sustainable and was set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal arguments, factual findings, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the challenge against confiscation of goods under importation and the imposition of fine and penalty in the case.