2015 (12) TMI 1484 - AT - Customs

Import of Pashmina and wool shawls - restricted items - Confiscation of goods under Section113(d), (e) and (l) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Imposition of penalty - Held that - no one on behalf of the appellant appeared for personal hearing. We also find that in the reply to the Show Cause Notice the appellant did not seek any cross-examination of the Wildlife authorities. In its appeal it has stated that proper chemical analysis of the shawls was not conducted by wildlife authorities. The appellant has no basis to assert that when it did not seek any cross-examination of the wildlife authorities who tested the samples. There can be various ways to test a sample depending upon the purpose of test. In these circumstances, the order of confiscation of 41 shawls for containing material prohibited for export is sustainable. As regards the contention that other shawls (other than 41) found in packet 4 should not have been confiscated, we find that the primary adjudicating authority has ordered confiscation of only 41 shawls and has categorically stated I order for unconditional release of remaining shawls out of 1290 shawls seized along with their respective packet. Thus, it is obvious that the confiscation ordered by the primary adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority was only with regard to the 41 shawls. As 41 shawls were liable to confiscation on account of being attempted to be exported in spite of being prohibited for export, the appellant is clearly liable to penalty. The penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of shawls under Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962

Confiscation of Shawls under Customs Act, 1962:
The case involved an appeal against the order upholding the confiscation of 41 shawls under Sections 113(d), (e), and (l) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The appellant had filed a Shipping Bill for the export of Pashmina and wool shawls, some of which were found to contain hair from the Tibetan Antelope, a prohibited item under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The appellant contested the confiscation, arguing that the prohibition applied only to the 41 shawls from a specific packet, questioning the validity of the test report by Wildlife authorities. Despite the absence of the appellant during the hearing and failure to request cross-examination of the authorities, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation. It was noted that the primary adjudicating authority had only ordered the confiscation of the 41 shawls in question, releasing the remaining shawls. The Tribunal found the confiscation of the 41 shawls justified as they were attempted to be exported despite being prohibited, upholding the penalty imposed.

Imposition of Penalty under Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant contended that the penalty of Rs. 50,000 was unreasonable and arbitrary, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the penalty was justified considering the attempted export of prohibited shawls. The Tribunal emphasized that since the appellant did not seek cross-examination of the Wildlife authorities or challenge the testing methods, their assertion regarding the lack of proper analysis by the authorities was unfounded. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds for interference with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the confiscation of the 41 shawls and the imposition of the penalty.