2013 (11) TMI 889 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Redemption option given to assessee - Held that - paper waste of Chinese origin was brought into India from Nepal in the impugned truck by the appellant - Since the said paper waste was brought in the impugned truck, confiscation of the truck was also ordered by the original authority and both the confiscations were upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the confiscation and confirmation of fine and penalty against the appellants is upheld - appellant s unit is under BIFR proceedings and the benefit of the BIFR proceedings should be given to the appellant in view of the nature of the unit, I find that the BIFR proceedings are not applicable to the seizure and confiscation for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act. Moreover, the appellants have already deposited fine in respect of paper waste and the penalties imposed in the present case. In respect of the truck which was already released provisionally to the appellant and they are using the same for their business purpose - No reason to reduce redemption amount - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Seizure and confiscation of waste paper and truck, redemption fine, penalty imposition, applicability of BIFR proceedings.

Analysis:
1. Seizure and Confiscation of Waste Paper and Truck:
The case involved the seizure of a consignment of waste paper valued at Rs.8,500 brought from Nepal along with a truck. The waste paper and the truck were confiscated by the original authority, with an option for redemption by paying fines. The appellant challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the confiscation and fines imposed.

2. Redemption Fine and Penalty Imposition:
The appellant had already deposited the penalty imposed on individuals and the fine for waste paper during the investigation. However, they had not paid the redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000 for the truck and sought relief based on their company being under BIFR proceedings. The Ld. Advocate argued for relief citing a similar case where relief was granted due to BIFR proceedings.

3. Applicability of BIFR Proceedings:
The Ld. Departmental Representative contended that BIFR proceedings do not apply in cases of seizure of contraband goods like the waste paper in question. It was argued that no concession should be granted based on BIFR proceedings in this case.

4. Judgment and Decision:
After hearing both sides, the judge upheld the confiscation of the waste paper and the truck, along with the fines and penalties imposed. The judge noted that the BIFR proceedings do not apply to seizure and confiscation under the Customs Act. The judge also confirmed the redemption fine for the truck, considering that it was already released provisionally to the appellant for business use. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the original order was upheld based on the facts and legal arguments presented.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of seizure, redemption, penalties, and the applicability of BIFR proceedings in the legal judgment delivered by Mr. Sahab Singh.