2013 (11) TMI 1478 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of the Echo Cardiography system imported - Penalty u/s 111 - Held that - Adjudicating authority did not specify the amount of Customs duty payable by the respondent - Held that - sub-section (2) of the said section obligated the owner/person referred to in sub-section (1) to pay any duty and charges payable in respect of the goods confiscated with option for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. The statutory provision is clear enough and hence it was not necessary for the Commissioner to specify the duty liability of the party. As the appeal filed by the respondent against the confiscation of the goods was dismissed by this Tribunal and as there is no evidence of this Tribunal s decision having been set aside by appellate court, the respondent is liable to pay the duty leviable on the goods in accordance with law - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Failure to specify the amount of Customs duty payable by the respondent
- Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act regarding duty liability and charges on confiscated goods

Analysis:

Issue 1: Failure to specify the amount of Customs duty payable by the respondent
The department (appellant) raised a grievance that the adjudicating authority did not specify the amount of Customs duty payable by the respondent. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) reiterated this ground before the Tribunal. The impugned order had directed the confiscation of the imported Echo Cardiography system and provided an option for the importer to pay a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. However, the specific amount of Customs duty payable was not explicitly mentioned in the order.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act regarding duty liability and charges on confiscated goods
Upon analyzing Section 125 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal found that sub-section (2) of the said section imposes an obligation on the owner or person referred to in sub-section (1) to pay any duty and charges payable in respect of confiscated goods, with an option for payment of a fine in place of confiscation. The Tribunal noted that the statutory provision clearly outlines the duty liability and charges on confiscated goods. It was emphasized that it was not necessary for the Commissioner to specify the duty liability of the party separately in the order.

The Tribunal further explained that since the respondent's appeal against the confiscation of the goods was dismissed by the Tribunal, and there was no evidence of the Tribunal's decision being set aside by an appellate court, the respondent remained liable to pay the duty leviable on the goods as per the law. Therefore, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal, affirming the duty liability of the respondent based on the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the duty liability and charges on confiscated goods as per Section 125 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the statutory obligation of the owner or person concerned to pay the applicable duty and charges, irrespective of the specific mention of the duty amount in the confiscation order.