2016 (11) TMI 171 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of imported goods - option of redemption on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/- - imposition of penalty - misdeclaration of weight - Held that - the appellants had filed the Bill of Entry on the basis of the documents received by them. They have also paid the duty on the transaction value as assessed initially. On finding excess weight, they were willing to pay the differential duty also, and waived the show cause notice and personal hearing as they were in urgent need of the goods. Subsequent to the adjudication order, they paid the differential duty, redemption fine and penalty and cleared the goods. However, their contention is that the redemption fine and penalty are not warranted on the facts of the case. In view of the specific facts of the case, we find that the imposition of penalty on the appellants cannot be sustained. Hence, the penalty of ₹ 30,000/- imposed on the appellants is set-aside - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of weight leading to confiscation of imported goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty.

In this case, the appellant filed an appeal against an order-in-appeal that upheld the confiscation of imported goods due to misdeclaration of weight. The Adjudicating Authority had confiscated the goods and allowed redemption on payment of a fine of ?50,000, while also imposing a penalty of ?30,000 on the appellants. The appellant argued that there was no misdeclaration on their part, attributing the excess weight to packing material. Although they paid the differential duty without objection and cleared the goods urgently, they contested the confiscation and penalties as unwarranted. The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, supported the imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Upon review, the Tribunal observed that the appellants had submitted the Bill of Entry based on the documents received, paid duty on the assessed value, and promptly paid the differential duty upon discovering the excess weight. They also waived a show cause notice and personal hearing due to the urgent need for the goods. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal found the penalty imposed on the appellants unjustified. Consequently, the penalty of ?30,000 was set aside, while upholding the impugned orders with this modification. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.