2011 (9) TMI 812 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and imposition of penalty - Appellant contended as eligible to move their container under self sealing facility granted by Central Excise authorities and thus eligible to avail benefit of direct entry to the port Held that - Appellant did not have the necessary permission for self sealing - Direct entry to the port was denied - Asked to take the container back from port under preventive supervision to de stuff and export the cargo as dock stuffed cargo - Instead of bringing the container back the same was loaded on the vessel and shipped to the Colombo - Goods in question were without any shipping documents passed by the Customs in violation of provisions of the Act Goods were rightly held liable for confiscation by the original authority for violation of the Customs Act - Once the goods are confiscated redemption fine needs to be imposed however find and penalty reduced.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Customs Act - Attempted illegal exportation without proper examination and permission, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, disparity in penalties imposed in similar cases.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a case where M/s. Helvoet Rubber & Plastics Tech. India Pvt. Ltd. attempted to export goods to Korea without the necessary permission for self-sealing, resulting in denial of direct entry to the port by customs. Instead of returning the container for proper examination, the goods were shipped to Colombo and brought back. The Joint Commissioner of Customs held the goods liable for confiscation under Sections 113(f) & (g) of the Customs Act, imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000 and a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that they were not at fault, as they were a victim of circumstances and had no control over the container once it entered the docks area. They highlighted a previous case where a lower redemption fine was imposed for similar circumstances. The appellant contended that the penalties were harsh and should be set aside, especially considering the financial losses incurred, including demurrage charges of Rs. 5 lakhs.

The Revenue's representative reiterated that the appellants unlawfully attempted to benefit from self-sealing provisions without complying with Customs Act requirements, justifying the confiscation and penalties imposed. The Tribunal noted that the appellants lacked the necessary permission for self-sealing and violated Section 113(g) of the Customs Act by attempting to export goods without proper documentation or permission.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods but reduced the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 1,00,000 each, considering the unique circumstances of the case. The decision was based on the legal provisions under the Customs Act and the specific facts presented during the proceedings, ultimately disposing of the appeal accordingly.