2015 (3) TMI 551 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods - Confiscation of seized goods - held that - It is the admission of the appellant themselves that the goods are non-basmati rice. They are sought to be taken back to the town. In these circumstances, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is appropriate. As in this case it is an admission by the appellant themselves that the impugned goods are non-basmati rice, therefore, I uphold the order of confiscation of impugned goods. As these goods have been taken back to the town, therefore considering the factual matrix of the case, I further reduce the Redemption Fine from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 2.50,000 and reduce the penalty to ₹ 50,000 - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of Redemption Fine and penalty by the ld. Commissioner for export of non-basmati rice.
2. Reduction of Redemption Fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the imposition of a Redemption Fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 2,75,000 for exporting non-basmati rice, which is prohibited. The goods were seized, and a show-cause notice was issued. The Commissioner adjudicated by confiscating the goods and allowing redemption on payment. The appellant appealed, leading to a reduction in the Redemption Fine to Rs. 5,00,000 and the penalty to Rs. 75,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant further appealed to the Appellate Tribunal against this order.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that samples tested by the Dy. Chief Chemist did not show the aroma of basmati rice, contrary to the Central Excise officers' physical examination findings. The appellant also highlighted discrepancies in the supplier's statement and the invoice, emphasizing the reliance on the invoice as documentary evidence. The counsel pointed out non-compliance with Circular no. 33/08, which mandates testing at an Agmark center. The appellant requested setting aside the confiscation order, Redemption Fine, and penalty, or alternatively, a reduction due to returning the goods.

3. The ld. AR supported the Commissioner's order, citing the appellant's admission that the goods were non-basmati rice and intended for return. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the confiscation due to the appellant's admission but reduced the Redemption Fine to Rs. 2,50,000 and the penalty to Rs. 50,000 considering the circumstances. The appeal was partly allowed with consequential relief, concluding the judgment.

This detailed analysis covers the issues, arguments, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai in the legal matter concerning the imposition and reduction of fines and penalties related to the export of non-basmati rice.