2017 (11) TMI 1788 - AT - Customs

Release of confiscated goods - import of coal - benefit of N/N. 12/2012 - whether the applicant is eligible for the benefit of notification No. 12/2012-Cus. or otherwise? - Held that - It is undisputed that confiscated quantity of coal i.e. 14,801 MT is allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and the said goods are still lying in the port. No useful purpose will be served if the goods are lying in port and cannot be utilised by the appellant and also occupying valuable space. The appellant vide their letter dated 13-1-2016 addressed to the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam, had volunteered to pay the differential duty applicable in respect of the confiscated coal along with interest and also redemption fine as imposed by the adjudicating authority, but under protest. In our view, the lower authorities should have accepted this fair offer of the appellant, keeping in view the fact that entire Order-in-Original is contested before the Tribunal on merits, we find that the appellant should be permitted to clear the quantity of 14,801.52 MT imported coal coke breeze on payment of proportionate duty liability along with interest and payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2.50 crores as imposed by adjudicating authority. As regards application No. C/EH/30101/2017, we find that the Division Bench at Hyderabad is not functioning in its full strength due to vacancy of Member (Technical) and application will be taken up as and when Division Bench is constituted. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with the liberty to appellant to file the same as and when Division Bench starts functioning regularly. Applications disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus.
2. Release of confiscated goods.
3. Functioning of Division Bench at Hyderabad.

Eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus:
The case involved the question of whether the appellant was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. The appellant had imported coal claiming it to be metallurgical coke under the said notification. A portion of the imported coal was confiscated, and the appellant sought to release it by paying proportionate duty liability, interest, and redemption fine. The issue was considered highly technical and required further examination during the final disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal directed that the appellant could clear the confiscated coal on payment of the specified duty, interest, and redemption fine, excluding the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, as the entire Order-in-Original was under challenge.

Release of confiscated goods:
Regarding the release of the confiscated goods, the Tribunal noted that the confiscated coal was still lying at the port, unused by the appellant, and occupying valuable space. The appellant had offered to pay the duty applicable along with interest and redemption fine under protest. The Tribunal found this offer fair and directed the lower authorities to release the confiscated consignment of "coke breeze" on payment of proportionate duty, interest, and redemption fine as imposed by the adjudicating authority. The penalty imposed was not required to be deposited at that stage due to the contested nature of the Order-in-Original.

Functioning of Division Bench at Hyderabad:
The Division Bench at Hyderabad was not functioning at full strength due to a vacancy of a Member (Technical). Consequently, an application related to the functioning of the Division Bench was dismissed with the appellant given the liberty to refile it once the Bench resumed regular operations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both miscellaneous applications, allowing the release of the confiscated goods upon payment of specified amounts and dismissing the application related to the Division Bench's functioning until it resumed regular operations.