2015 (10) TMI 2259 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Misdeclaration of goods - goods imported were different from the goods ordered - Held that - The supplier in this case is a well established multi-national on M/s Basell International Trading FZE. It is also seen that the documents relating to the import goods were released by the bank after receiving the balance amount from the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that when the appellant took up the matter with the supplier immediately on coming to know that goods imported were different from the goods ordered, the supplier immediately confessed to the mistake having been made and returned the money through bank and also agreed to bear the expenses with regard to re-export of thee goods. - even in a case where anti-dumping duty is imposed after the orders for supply of goods are placed but before their import the importer can legitimately request for re-export on the ground that the import has become economically unviable due to anti dumping duty. Further it has been mentioned in the primary adjudication order that LDPE was more expensive than PP and therefore, it appeals to reason that the appellant would not collude for getting the supply of cheaper goods while paying for more expensive goods. - It is obvious from this observation of the primary adjudicating authority that no foul play was suspected, let alone established, by him. Indeed, the facts and circumstances of the case clearly point towards the absence of any mala fide on the part of the appellants - Re export of goods allowed - there is no reasonable ground for imposition of fine and penalty as a condition for re-export of the goods and therefore we set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty for allowing re-export of mis-declared goods.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant filed two Bills of Entry for goods declared as LDPE, which were found to be Polypropylene (PP) granules. The primary adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with an option for redemption and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.
2. The appellant argued that the orders for LDPE were placed before the mistake, and the supplier accepted the error, reimbursed the payment, and agreed to re-export the goods. They cited previous judgments to support that no fine or penalty should be imposed without mens rea.
3. The Revenue contended that the mis-declaration seemed to avoid anti-dumping duty on PP, referencing previous cases to support the imposition of redemption fine and penalty in such circumstances.
4. The Tribunal noted the timeline of events, the supplier's acknowledgment of the mistake, and the absence of any collusion by the appellant to receive cheaper goods. They found no basis for the Revenue's speculation on avoiding anti-dumping duty. Previous judgments were cited where re-export without fine or penalty was allowed in similar circumstances.
5. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for imposing a fine and penalty for re-exporting the goods. They set aside the impugned order and allowed re-export without any fine or penalty, ultimately allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the facts and legal precedents, and the final decision to allow re-export without imposing any fine or penalty.