2013 (10) TMI 455 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(a) - Import of Stainless Steel Coils - revenue felt that goods were secondary quality. - Held that - The stand of the respondents for early closure of the matter was appreciated by the Commissioner and he has shown leniency while imposing redemption of fine and penalty, taking into account other facts like demurrage and detention charges which are also relevant for determination of redemption fine. Further we note that the respondent has already suffered by paying higher rate of duty on the value of prime quality steels whereas if goods were actually of prime quality the incidence where lower or if the goods were seconds then value would have been lower which also would have resulted in payment of lower amount of customs duty. So it is case of double whammy - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods as prime or secondary quality, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Classification of Goods: The case involved an import of 'Stainless Steel Coils' declared as prime quality but later suspected to be secondary quality by the Revenue. The National Metallurgical Laboratory confirmed the suspicion based on visual inspection and chemical analysis. The respondents acknowledged the misclassification and agreed to pay duty for secondary quality goods without contesting a show cause notice. The Commissioner confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 54,03,602.56 under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposing a nominal redemption fine of Rs. 15,000 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 112 (a).

2. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that the redemption fine and penalty were disproportionately low given the value of the goods and the admitted mis-declaration by the appellants. They cited a previous Tribunal case where higher fines and penalties were imposed for a similar offense, seeking an increase in the fine and penalty in this case.

3. Appellant's Defense: The appellants justified the low redemption fine and penalty by highlighting the heavy demurrage already incurred and the economic decision to pay higher duty to expedite clearance rather than prolong the issue. They argued that they had suffered financial losses due to the delay in clearance, demurrage, and retention charges, making the nominal fine and penalty justifiable.

4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's willingness to resolve the matter promptly and noted the financial losses incurred due to the misclassification. Considering the higher duty already paid on the value of prime quality goods, the Tribunal deemed the situation a "double whammy" for the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal to increase the redemption fine and penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the case where the appellants had suffered financially due to the misclassification of goods and subsequent delay in clearance. The decision highlighted the importance of considering all relevant factors, including financial losses incurred, in determining the appropriate redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.