2015 (12) TMI 582 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - clearance have been allowed on execution of bond and bank guarantee in terms of the DEEC scheme, the adjudicating authority should have confiscated the goods and given an option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of fine - Held that - The goods are not available nor the person who own the goods now are known to the department. Section 125(1) of the Customs Act stipulates that whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the adjudicating authority should give an option to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession/custody, such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the officer thinks fit. In other words, the option to redeem has to be given to the owner or to the person from whose possession the goods have been seized. In the case before us, the details of both these persons are not known nor the goods are available for confiscation. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order wherein the adjudicating authority has correctly refrained from imposing any fine. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Original No. 44/2013/CAC/CC(E)/YG/GR.VII
- Confiscation of goods imported under DEEC scheme
- Alleged violation of end-use conditions
- Redemption of goods on payment of fine

Analysis:

1. The appeal was made against Order-in-Original No. 44/2013/CAC/CC(E)/YG/GR.VII passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Custom House, Mumbai. The issue in question was whether the goods imported under the DEEC scheme were liable for confiscation due to an alleged violation of the end-use conditions.

2. The adjudicating authority refrained from confiscating the goods and imposing any redemption fine, as the goods were already imported and cleared under specific bills of entries. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the goods should be confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the end-use conditions were not fulfilled by the importer.

3. The Revenue contended that since the clearance was allowed under the DEEC scheme, the goods should have been confiscated, and the importer given the option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine. However, the adjudicating authority did not confiscate the goods or allow redemption, leading to the Revenue's appeal against the decision.

4. The tribunal noted that the Customs Act stipulates that when confiscation of goods is authorized, the owner or the person from whose possession the goods were seized should be given the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. In this case, the details of the owners were unknown, and the goods were not available for confiscation, leading to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the decision not to impose a fine.

5. Ultimately, the tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, as the adjudicating authority had correctly refrained from imposing any fine due to the unavailability of the goods and the unknown persons associated with them.