2014 (8) TMI 12 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Under valuation of goods - Assessee admitted under valuation - Held that - when goods are liable for confiscation, and confiscated and released to the assessee on his executing a bond or bank guarantee, the proceedings are concluded holding that if there is a violation of the provisions of the Act, then the order of confiscation has to follow as a matter of course. As the goods are already released in favour of the assessee instead of again taking possession of the confiscated goods, the law provides for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation which is popularly known as redemption fine. Therefore, whether the bond executed by the assessee is in force; whether the bank guarantee executed for due compliance of the bond is in force or not; whether goods are in possession of the authority or not; whether the goods in existence or not on the day when order was passed is totally irrelevant - Once that finding is recorded in lieu of confiscation of the goods and option is given to the assessee to pay confiscation fine ie., redemption fine to retain the goods - decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of redemption fine when bond and bank guarantee are cancelled.
2. Confiscation of goods due to under-valuation and use of false invoices.
3. Appeal outcome regarding redemption fine and confiscation of goods.
4. Application of law and judgments in determining redemption fine imposition.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal held that no redemption fine is imposable when the bond and bank guarantee executed by the importer have been cancelled. However, the Assessing Authority upheld the charge of under-valuation against the importer, who admitted the violation and paid an amount towards duty and interest. Both the Revenue and the importer appealed the decision.

2. The appellate court dismissed the importer's appeal but allowed the Revenue's appeal, remanding the matter to impose a redemption fine as the goods were confiscated. The Authority, after considering objections and relevant judgments, held that the imported goods were liable for confiscation due to violations and imposed a redemption fine instead. The importer appealed this decision to the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal set aside the redemption fine imposition, stating that the bond and bank guarantee had expired, and the goods were not in the possession of the authorities. However, the High Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing that the release of goods on bond execution does not prevent confiscation if violations are found. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous and allowed the Revenue's appeal, restoring the original Authority's order.

4. The High Court clarified that the existence of the bond, bank guarantee, or possession of goods by authorities is irrelevant in determining confiscation and redemption fine. The key consideration is whether the importer contravened the law and if goods are liable for confiscation. Relying on the Apex Court's precedent, the High Court emphasized that the option of paying a redemption fine exists to retain confiscated goods. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and upheld the original Authority's order, allowing the Revenue's appeal.