2015 (12) TMI 1253 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Penalty u/s 117 - Held that - No doubt the goods may be liable to confiscation strictly going by the proviso to Section 111(d) read with Foreign Trade Act. However the Revenue never chose the option of imposing penalty under Section 112 at the original stage in all these cases and not resorting to confiscation, in my opinion it is too late or the matter to be reopened. The proper course to be adopted would have been to remand the matter to the original authority so that the importers are given an opportunity to contest proposal for confiscation, imposition of redemption fine (in the absence of goods) and imposition of penalty under Section 112. It is settled law that when goods are not available and have already been released on payment of duty, they cannot be confiscated. Only in the case of provisional assessment where goods are released conditionally, confiscation can be resorted to and fine can be imposed if the goods are not available. - for the only offence of not having the IE Code at the time of importation, imposing penalty under Section 112 and remanding the matter for that purpose may not be necessary. It is not the case that no penalty has been imposed on the importers in this case. In my opinion under these circumstances penalty imposed by the original authority in all the cases will serve the purpose and therefore I consider that it would not be appropriate to consider the appeals - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 117 of Customs Act 1962 without issuing show-cause notice.
2. Request for confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act 1962.
3. Lack of indication on the value of imported goods and duty liability in impugned orders.
4. Applicability of penalty for not having Importer Exporter Code (IE Code) at the time of importation.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the imposition of penalties under Section 117 of the Customs Act 1962 without the issuance of show-cause notices. Importers without an IE Code requested adjudication without the issuance of show-cause notices. The original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000 in all cases. Appeals were filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeals, leading the matter to the Tribunal.

2. The Revenue argued for the confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fines, and penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962. However, it was noted that no show-cause notices were issued, and no proposals were made for confiscating the goods. The judgment highlighted that the Revenue did not choose to impose penalties under Section 112 at the original stage, and it was deemed too late to reopen the matter for confiscation.

3. The impugned orders and appeal memoranda lacked information on the value of imported goods and duty liabilities. While the goods may be liable to confiscation, the Revenue did not opt for imposing penalties under Section 112 initially. The judgment emphasized the importance of remanding the matter to the original authority to give importers an opportunity to contest proposals for confiscation, redemption fines, and penalties under Section 112.

4. The judgment concluded that penalties imposed by the original authority for not having the IE Code at the time of importation served the purpose. It was deemed unnecessary to remand the matter solely for imposing penalties under Section 112. The penalties imposed were considered sufficient in cases where importers were penalized for not having the IE Code, and the appeals were rejected based on the penalties already imposed.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues surrounding the imposition of penalties and the considerations made by the Tribunal in rejecting the appeals.

← Previous Next →