2014 (8) TMI 651 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Misdeclaration of goods - Malafide intention to avail benefit of DEEC Scheme - Redemption fine - Held that - earned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that on the plea of mis-declaration with regard to grade and value of the goods, he is not seriously disputing the finding of the Commissioner of Customs as well as the Tribunal - Tribunal has, in fact, been lenient in reducing the redemption fine from ₹ 2,50,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/- and penalty from ₹ 30,000/- to ₹ 5,000/- in a case of proven mis-declaration of goods with an intention to avail the benefit conferred under DEEC Scheme, which, in our considered opinion, justifies confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the order passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference and the importer is not entitled to seek any further indulgence. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act in High Sea sale basis.
2. Correctness of imposing redemption fine and penalty despite no mis-declaration of Grade and Value.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty in a case of denied exemption, leading to double jeopardy.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant imported Stainless Steel Coil AISI 304 and filed a Bill of Entry claiming duty exemption under DEEC Scheme. The goods were examined and found to conform to AISI 304 Grade, but declared as Second Quality Grade AISI 304. The Commissioner of Customs held it as mis-declaration under Section 111(m) and (o) of the Customs Act, ordering confiscation with redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty, considering the mis-declaration for DEEC Scheme benefit. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, justifying confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty.

Issue 2:
The appellant challenged the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal acknowledged the mis-declaration for DEEC Scheme benefit but reduced the quantum of fine and penalty. The appellant did not dispute the mis-declaration but contested the amount of redemption fine and penalty. The court found the Tribunal's leniency in reducing the fine and penalty justified, upholding the order without interference.

Issue 3:
Although three substantial questions of law were raised, the appellant's counsel conceded the mis-declaration regarding the goods' grade and value. The appeal focused on the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. The court noted the Tribunal's reduction of fine and penalty in a case of proven mis-declaration for DEEC Scheme benefit. Considering the circumstances, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal and denying further indulgence to the importer.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the substantial questions of law against the appellant, without awarding costs.