2017 (11) TMI 1884 - AT - Customs

Provisional Release of seized goods - export of the same through Petrapole Land Customs Station - confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT - The appellant claimed the seized goods but thereafter withdrew his claim for the ownership of the goods. The documents submitted by the appellants are found to be illicit in nature. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the export documents are not matching with the seized records. There is a dispute on the claim of the ownership of the goods and therefore, seizure and confiscation of goods are justified - however, the quantum of the redemption fine and penalty are excessive, and is reduced. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Seizure and confiscation of goods, ownership claim dispute, excessive redemption fine and penalty.

The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata involved a case where Customs officers intercepted a vehicle carrying goods, leading to the seizure of cloves and miscellaneous items. The appellant, who claimed ownership initially, later withdrew the claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted discrepancies between export documents and seized records. The tribunal acknowledged a dispute over ownership but justified the seizure and confiscation due to the questionable nature of documents. However, the tribunal agreed that the redemption fine and penalties were excessive.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the tribunal considered the appellant's submission that the goods were provisionally released and exported later. The appellant argued for setting aside the confiscation and penalties, claiming the seizure was based on mere suspicion. The tribunal found the appellant's documents illicit and noted the mismatch between export documents and seized records. While justifying the confiscation due to ownership dispute, the tribunal agreed with the appellant's counsel that the redemption fine and penalties were too high.

As a result, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine on goods and the vehicle to ?75,000 and ?40,000, respectively. The penalty imposed on the appellant was also reduced to ?10,000. The tribunal disposed of both appeals with the revised fines and penalties, emphasizing the excessive nature of the initial amounts. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 16-11-2017.