2013 (5) TMI 490 - AT - Customs

Confiscation orders - Held that - Admittedly, the goods have been declared by M/s. Montu Enterprises while filing the Bill of Entry for 440 cartons of various toys but on intelligence goods examined the container was containing 263 cartons of digital cameras and 150 cartons of wrist watches were found. If the goods were not intercepted, the same would have been cleared without claiming the ownership as the actual owner of the goods viz. digital cameras and wrist watches. Therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation - impugned order of confiscation confirmed but redemption fine & penalties as considered on higher side thus reduced accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of redemption fine and penalties imposed on the appellants for mis-declaration of imported goods.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an order imposing redemption fine and penalties on the appellants for mis-declaration of imported goods. The importer, M/s. Montu Enterprises, had filed a Bill of Entry declaring a consignment of toys from Dubai. However, upon examination, it was discovered that the container also contained digital cameras and wrist watches not declared in the packing list. The Revenue argued that if the goods had not been intercepted, they would have been cleared without the true owner, M/s. H.D. Associates, filing a Bill of Entry. The appellants contended that the additional goods were meant for M/s. H.D. Associates and there was no intention of mis-declaration. The Tribunal noted that the goods were liable for confiscation due to the mis-declaration but found the redemption fine excessive. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and adjusted the penalties imposed on the individuals involved.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and found that the goods were indeed mis-declared by M/s. Montu Enterprises. Despite declaring only toys in the Bill of Entry, the container also contained digital cameras and wrist watches. The Tribunal held that if the goods had not been intercepted, they would have been cleared without the true owner, M/s. H.D. Associates, claiming ownership. Therefore, the goods were deemed liable for confiscation. However, the Tribunal found the redemption fine to be excessive and reduced it significantly. Additionally, the penalties imposed on the individuals involved were also adjusted to lower amounts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the goods were liable for confiscation due to mis-declaration by M/s. Montu Enterprises. However, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 17 lakhs to Rs. 2.0 lakhs and adjusted the penalties imposed on the individuals involved. The appeals were disposed of with the revised penalties and consequential relief, if any, was granted.