2008 (4) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation - Import of Rough Marble Blocks - On second examination, it was found that there was 7% in excess of the goods than the declared quantity - appellants submits that they had the licence for importing rough marble blocks and he also submits that B/E, which are disputed have already been debited in the said licence for the excess quantity found by the authorities - no allegation of misdeclaration of value confiscation & penalty on ground of misdeclaration of quantity is set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Excess import of rough marble blocks without a specific import license.
2. Confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and personal penalty imposed.
3. Discrepancy in the quantity of imported goods.
4. Applicability of previous tribunal judgments.
5. Validity of import license and acceptance of excess quantity under it.
6. Correctness of fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.
7. Misdeclaration of quantity and value of imported goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of rough marble blocks without a specific import license, leading to the confiscation of goods, a redemption fine of Rs. 20,000, and a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the appellants.
2. The adjudicating authority found a 7% excess in the declared quantity of goods, which was restricted for import without a specific license. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, citing violation of Export-Import Policy provisions.
3. The appellant argued that the excess quantity was covered under a valid import license, referencing specific tribunal judgments. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order based on policy violation grounds.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the penalty imposed was lenient considering the violation, leading to the admission of the appeal and directing consequential action by the adjudicating authority.
5. The tribunal found that the quantity discrepancy was only 7%, in line with previous judgments, and that the value declaration was correct. The decision to confiscate the goods based on misdeclaration of quantity was deemed incorrect, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
6. The tribunal highlighted the acceptance of excess quantity under a valid import license, emphasizing that the goods were imported against the specific license, supporting the appellant's case.
7. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate quantity declaration and the inapplicability of misdeclaration allegations when the value declaration is correct, ultimately setting aside the order based on incorrect quantity misdeclaration.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, tribunal's findings, and the final decision in favor of the appellant based on legal principles and precedents.