2020 (1) TMI 1345 - AT - Customs

Absolute confiscation of the seized imported goods - Analog Watches - Enhancement of punishment awarded - HELD THAT - It is observe that enhanced punishment was awarded without following the due process and CHA was also penalised against whom no specific direction was available in the order of CESTAT for initiation of adjudication process. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Incorrect description of imported goods
2. Confiscation and penalty imposition
3. Appeal against penalty enhancement

Analysis:
1. The case involved two consignments imported by the appellant with a description of 'plastic parts of toys,' which were actually found to contain 4,00,000 pieces of Analog Watches worth &8377; 68,00,000. The goods were seized by the respondent-department due to the discrepancy in the description.

2. The legal formalities concerning the adjudication process were completed, resulting in an adjudication order that imposed absolute confiscation of the seized goods and penalties. The penalties included &8377; 3,40,000 on the proprietor and &8377; 1,00,000 on the Director of the CHA Company. Further, proceedings against other parties were abated due to the death of a proprietor.

3. Appeals were filed before the CESTAT by the appellant and the respondent-department. The appellant's appeal was remanded for De-novo adjudication, during which the penalty against the Director of the CHA Company was increased. However, it was observed that the enhanced punishment was awarded without following due process, and penalties were imposed on a new party without specific direction.

4. The Tribunal noted that the penalty increase and holding a new party guilty were not in line with the directions of the CESTAT in a previous order. It was emphasized that appellants should not be placed in a worse-off situation for preferring an appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order confirming the penalties and allowed both appeals, emphasizing the importance of following due process and specific directions in penalty imposition.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues of incorrect goods description, confiscation, penalty imposition, and the appeal process, culminating in the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty orders due to procedural irregularities and lack of specific directions.