2016 (9) TMI 273 - AT - Customs

Imposition of Redemption fine - violation of restriction for unloading of appellant s imported goods at Dighi Port. - import or Hot Briquetted Iron - Direct Reduced Iron - permission to be unloaded at Dighi Port as per Notification No. 01/2012-Cus.(NT) dated 31.01.2012 contravention of Section 33 read with Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962 Held that - When there was a restriction of unloading of goods at Dighi Port while filing the IGM and before permitting the unloading, the Customs department could have raised the objection and denied the unloading. Further, the appellant are held equally responsible in as much as they must abide the law prevailing. Ignorance of law is no excuse some leniency granted redemption fine and penalty decreased appeal disposed off decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Customs Act regarding unloading of goods at Dighi Port, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, liability of the appellant, applicability of SEZ Rules.

Analysis:
1. Violation of Customs Act: The appellant, a FTWZ unit, imported goods to be stored at Arshiya FTWZ. The Customs authorities permitted unloading at Dighi Port, contrary to restrictions. The Assistant Commissioner imposed a redemption fine and penalty for contravention of Customs Act provisions. The appellant contested lack of knowledge about restrictions and reliance on Customs permission. The issue revolved around the responsibility for unloading goods at the restricted port.

2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that Customs authorities permitted unloading at Dighi Port despite restrictions, absolving them of fault. They cited the Customs Act's requirement for permission before unloading, placing responsibility on the authorities. Reference was made to a Tribunal judgment supporting the appellant's position. Additionally, the appellant highlighted FTWZ unit privileges under SEZ Rules, suggesting exemptions from restrictions.

3. Revenue's Position: The Revenue contended that regardless of intent, contravention of unloading restrictions occurred, justifying the penalty. Citing previous judgments, they emphasized strict adherence to Customs regulations. The Revenue maintained the penalty imposition was appropriate, rejecting the appellant's arguments.

4. Judgment: The Tribunal acknowledged the unloading restriction at Dighi Port but noted the Customs authorities' role in permitting unloading post-IGM filing. While emphasizing compliance with laws, the Tribunal considered the circumstances and reduced the fine and penalty. The judgment balanced fault attribution, recognizing the appellant's partial responsibility but mitigating the financial penalties imposed. The appeal was partly allowed, adjusting the fine and penalty amounts.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.