2013 (9) TMI 657 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods u/s 111(d) & (e) redemption fine u/s 125(1) penalty u/s 112(a) & (b) - DEEC scheme - violation an actual user condition of silk yarn - Assesse imported the goods which were confiscated by the department on the ground that no factory exist on the address provided by the assesse and the address reported was fictitious Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) was reasoned one and deserved to be upheld this was a case of non-application of mind and harassment to the assesse more than 10 years had elapsed since the goods were seized and confiscated and which had been lying with the department the order of the lower authority was not at all sustainable on facts since it had been decided on incorrect facts which cannot be sustained - it was noticed that no activity of manufacture was found to be carried out and the report of the jurisdictional authority that the said address was fictitious lower authority had not at all applied his mind revenue ignored the positive evidence put forth by the assesse Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of actual user condition of silk yarn under Advance License and DEEC Scheme; Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962; Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. Prev./Cus/01/2012; Fictitious factory addresses in DEEC Book; Confiscation of seized silk yarn; Appeal by Revenue against release of goods and refund of amount deposited.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a case where the Revenue challenged the release of seized silk yarn by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata had confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty on the respondent for violating the actual user condition of silk yarn imported under Advance License and DEEC Scheme. The Revenue contended that the factory addresses mentioned in the DEEC Book were fictitious, leading to the confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d) and (e) of the Customs Act, 1962. The ld. A.R. argued that the addresses provided by the respondent were not genuine, supporting the confiscation.

The Respondent, on the other hand, refuted the claim of fictitious addresses, stating that the addresses mentioned were either office locations or had changed due to operational reasons. The respondent provided evidence that the goods were actually manufactured at a different location, supported by a lease deed. The ld. Advocate highlighted that the Appellate Authority had previously set aside the cancellation of the Advance License, indicating the legitimacy of the manufacturing process at the actual location.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the lower authority had erred in solely relying on the fictitious address claim without considering the evidence presented by the respondent. The Tribunal noted that the goods were indeed manufactured at the actual location mentioned by the respondent, as supported by lease documents. The Tribunal upheld the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to release the goods and refund the amount deposited, emphasizing the non-application of mind by the lower authority and the lack of proper investigation at the actual manufacturing site.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to release the seized silk yarn and refund the amount deposited by the respondent, as the confiscation was deemed unjustified based on the evidence presented regarding the actual manufacturing location.