2016 (3) TMI 607 - AT - Customs

Confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Import of car other than manufacturing country - Levy of Redemption fine - Held that - as the import of car is not prohibited and by taking a note of various decisions of the Tribunal similar to the facts of the case, order of absolute confiscation is not justified. Therefore, it is modified in to an order of confiscation with an option to redeem the vehicle on payment of appropriate redemption fine and customs duty alongwith the penalty under Section 112 ibid. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Violation of import norms, Confiscation of imported vehicle, Justification for absolute confiscation, Compliance with Customs Act and I.T.C. Policies, Redemption fine and customs duty, Penalty imposed under Customs Act.

Violation of Import Norms:
The appellant imported a vehicle from Dubai, UAE, instead of the country of manufacture, Japan, violating licensing notes and import policy conditions. The appellant failed to produce a Type Approval Certificate as required, leading to absolute confiscation of the vehicle and imposition of penalties. The appellant argued that if a similar car had been previously imported into India, the authorities should not insist on certain certificates. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant contravened import norms stipulated in Chapter 87, Customs Act, and I.T.C. Policies.

Confiscation of Imported Vehicle:
The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation of the vehicle and imposed penalties based on the violation of import norms. The appellant requested the release of the vehicle on payment of a fine, emphasizing the mistake of the overseas dealer and the reputation of the manufacturer. The Revenue argued that the conduct of the appellants justified the confiscation, citing relevant case laws to support their stance.

Justification for Absolute Confiscation:
The Tribunal noted that the import of the car was not prohibited, and absolute confiscation was not warranted when goods are not prohibited. Referring to previous decisions, the Tribunal highlighted that confiscation should not be absolute if the goods are not prohibited, as it would not pose a danger to public health or morals. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between goods that cannot be imported under any circumstances and goods subject to conditions or specific categories of persons.

Compliance with Customs Act and I.T.C. Policies:
The Tribunal found that the appellant did not comply with the conditions of the import policy, failed to submit the required certificates, and waived the show cause notice and personal hearing. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, considering the violations of import norms and failure to meet policy conditions.

Redemption Fine and Customs Duty:
The Tribunal modified the order of absolute confiscation to allow redemption of the vehicle upon payment of a redemption fine and appropriate customs duty. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal emphasized that absolute confiscation was not justified in this case and provided an option for redemption, considering the circumstances and compliance issues.

Penalty Imposed under Customs Act:
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, remitting the matter to the adjudicating authority for determining the redemption fine under Section 125. The penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 117 of the Act was set aside. The appeal was disposed of with modifications to the confiscation order and penalties, ensuring compliance with relevant provisions and policies.