2015 (10) TMI 1286 - HC - Customs

Levy of penalty and confiscation of prohibited goods already exported Castor oil mixed with certain additives - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that Section 113 cannot be invoked for confiscation of goods and was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114? Held That - Goods exported contrary to prohibition imposed by law; penalty was rightly imposed by the Adjudicating Authority - Tribunal was in error in coming to conclusion that since the goods have been exported and not available for confiscation, order of confiscation under Section 113 cannot be passed; Section 114 is thus sustainable Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 113 of the Customs Act can be invoked for confiscation of goods already exported.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of penalty on the exporter under Section 114 of the Customs Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act:

The primary issue is whether goods that have already been exported can be confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that Section 113 could not be invoked for confiscation of goods already exported, interpreting the section to apply only to goods attempted to be exported. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the legislative intent behind Section 113, which explicitly mentions "goods attempted to be improperly exported."

However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation. The Court referred to the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Euresian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd., which held that the liability for confiscation arises as soon as the goods are attempted to be exported, and this liability is not extinguished by the actual export of the goods. The High Court agreed with this reasoning, stating that the goods become liable for confiscation as soon as an attempt is made to export them contrary to any prohibition, and this liability persists even after the goods have been exported.

2. Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act:

The second issue is whether the penalty imposed on the exporter under Section 114 of the Customs Act was justified. The Tribunal had set aside the penalty, reasoning that since the goods had already been exported and were not available for confiscation, the penalty under Section 114 could not be sustained.

The High Court, however, found this reasoning to be flawed. It reiterated that the liability for penalty under Section 114 arises as soon as the goods incur the liability for confiscation under Section 113. The Court emphasized that the personal penalty is imposed on individuals who, in relation to the goods, perform or omit any act that renders the goods liable for confiscation or abets such acts. Since the goods were exported contrary to the prohibition imposed by law, the penalty was rightly imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of Section 113 and Section 114 of the Customs Act. The Court held that the goods already exported are still liable for confiscation under Section 113, and the penalty under Section 114 is justified. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the appeals by the Revenue were allowed. The questions of law were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The High Court did not address the issue of enhancement of penalty as it was not raised by the Department.