2017 (9) TMI 1273 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - Redemption fine - penalty - mis-declaration of quantity of goods - there is a difference in weight to the extent of 2000 kgs - Held that - The excess quantity found in the container has not been disputed by the appellant and this is the exactly argument advanced by the Ld. AR that it is a case of mis-declaration of quantity. The authorities below have rightly confiscated the impugned goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty, therefore, the confiscation of goods is upheld. Considering the fact that the differential duty is only 94000/- and mistake has been admitted by the supplier on the goods. In that circumstance, the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant are excessively high, therefore, the redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 20,000/- and penalty is reduced to ₹ 10,000/-. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant for mis-declaration of quantity in imported goods.

Analysis:
The appellant imported Chinese Origin Polyester Knitted Fabrics and declared a net weight of 18573.8 kgs, but upon examination, a difference of 2000 kgs was found. This mis-declaration led to the imposition of differential duty, confiscation of goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the imposition of a redemption fine and penalty totaling &8377; 1,30,000/- and 47,000/- respectively. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that they had paid the differential duty and that the redemption fine and penalty were excessive.

The appellant's counsel contended that the issue of valuation had been resolved through payment of the differential duty, which was approximately &8377; 94000/-. They argued that the redemption fine and penalty were disproportionately high given the circumstances. On the other hand, the respondent's representative argued that as a regular importer, the appellant should have accurately declared the quantity of goods, justifying the imposition of the redemption fine and penalty.

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal acknowledged the undisputed excess quantity in the imported goods, confirming the mis-declaration of quantity. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and the imposition of the redemption fine and penalty. However, the Tribunal noted that the calculation leading to the redemption fine and penalty amounts was not provided in the impugned orders. Considering the admitted mistake in quantity and the actual amount of the differential duty, the Tribunal found the redemption fine and penalty excessively high. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced to &8377; 20,000/- and the penalty to &8377; 10,000/-.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the revised redemption fine and penalty amounts, providing a balanced resolution to the issue of excessive penalties for mis-declaration of quantity in imported goods.