2016 (11) TMI 900 - AT - Customs

Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - confiscation of approximately 105 cartons (pallets) of Nylon Filament Yarn - offending goods - whether the appellant assessee is able to co-relate the confiscated goods to the duty paying documents i.e. Bill of Entry or otherwise? - Held that - the appellant has failed to prove that the goods which are confiscated were duty paying goods. On perusal, we find that the invoice has raised by the supplier of the goods indicates vessel name as SIAM BRIDGE V-S105 . All the documents like invoice, packing list and certificate issued by the manufacturer of the said goods indicate the same vessel name while Bill of Entry which is produced before us indicates the vessel name and as Kota Parwira-V-10 . We hold that the appellant is unable to co-relate the duty paid nature of the goods. In the absence of any evidence to indicate that the confiscated goods were of the duty paid nature, we hold that the impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority and penalties on the appellants.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals filed against Order-in-Original No. CCP/KPM/ADJN/M &P/5/2004 dated 30-03-2004. The issue revolved around the redemption fine imposed and penalties on the appellants. The goods, 105 cartons of Nylon Filament Yarn, were seized during a search of godown premises. The lower authorities lifted the seizure on goods co-relatable with duty paying documents but issued a show cause notice for confiscation of Nylon Filament Yarn to the quantity of 25100.5 kgs valued at Rs. 37,65,075, with an option of redemption on payment of fines and penalties. The appellant claimed a typographical error in the description of goods and sought to set aside the confiscation and penalties.

The appellant argued that the description error was due to a mistake by clerical staff and presented documents to support their claim, including invoices and certificates. However, the departmental representative reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. The core issue was whether the appellant could prove that the confiscated goods were duty paying goods by co-relating them to the Bill of Entry or other documents.

Upon review of the submissions and documents, the tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish the confiscated goods' duty paid nature. Discrepancies were noted between the vessel names on the invoice, packing list, and manufacturer's certificate compared to the Bill of Entry. The tribunal concluded that the appellant could not co-relate the goods to duty paying documents, leading to the upholding of the impugned order. The judgment deemed the impugned order correct, legal, and devoid of any infirmity, resulting in the rejection of the appeals.