2018 (2) TMI 418 - AT - Customs

Redemption fine - penalty - live consignment of Rough Marble - consignment of Marbles which were imported earlier or otherwise - Held that - there is no dispute as to the fact that there was an excess quantity of 10.84 MT of Rough Marble Blocks which was seized and confiscated - argument of the Ld. Counsel that they were not aware of the quantum of Marble loaded by the supplier and the said Marble needs to be considered as rough and the gross weight needs to be considered is an unacceptable arguments - the redemption fine imposed is disproportionate to the value of the goods and needs to be reduced from ₹ 41,000/- to ₹ 27,000/-. Penalty - Held that - the ends of justice is will be met if imposed on this issue is fixed at ₹ 15,000/- - As regards the penalty imposed by the First Appellate Authority on a finding that the quantity of 118.27 MT of Rough Marble slabs which were excess than the quantity declared in respect of 12 Bills of Entry, I find that he was correct in coming to the conclusion that in the absence of goods, the same cannot be confiscated. To that extent, the impugned order is correct. Since the liability for confiscation of the Rough Marble Slabs is upheld, the penalty imposed on the appellants for such violation also needs to be upheld. It is noticed from the records that the value of the Rough Marble Slabs which was found excess in respect of 12 Bills of Entry, was approximately ₹ 16.73 lacs, Keeping in mind the convention of Tribunal, and to meet the ends of justice, penalty imposed on the appellant on this issue is fixed at ₹ 1,50,000/-. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Determination of redemption fine and penalty for excess quantity of Rough Marble Blocks imported under live consignment and previous consignments.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Rough Marble Blocks and filed Bills of Entry, declaring a quantity of 40 MT on 1.7.2009. However, the actual quantity found was 50.84 MT, leading to the seizure of the excess quantity. Further investigation revealed that the appellant had imported an excess quantity of 118.27 MT of Rough Marble Blocks under 12 different Bills of Entry from April 2009 to June 2009. The differential duty on the excess quantity was paid by the appellant, and a show cause notice was issued for confiscation of goods from the live consignment and the 12 previous consignments.

2. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated 10.84 MT of excess Rough Marble Blocks from the live consignment with an option to redeem on payment of a fine. Additionally, the excess quantity imported under the 12 previous Bills of Entry was also confiscated, with a redemption fine and penalty imposed. The First Appellate Authority upheld the confiscation of the live consignment but found the redemption fine on the previous consignments unsustainable and upheld the penalties imposed.

3. Upon review, it was established that the confiscation of the excess quantity of 10.84 MT from the live consignment was justified. However, the redemption fine of ?41,000 imposed was deemed disproportionate to the value of the goods. Following the convention, the redemption fine was reduced to ?27,000 to align with approximately 20% of the value of the confiscated goods.

4. In terms of penalties, a penalty of ?15,000 was deemed appropriate for the excess quantity found in the live consignment. For the excess quantity imported under the 12 previous Bills of Entry, the appellant was found liable for confiscation as per Sec 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, a penalty of ?1,50,000 was imposed, considering the value of the excess Rough Marble Slabs and to ensure justice was served.

5. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the Rough Marble Slabs and the penalties imposed, modifying the redemption fine and penalty amounts to align with legal conventions and meet the ends of justice. The appeal was disposed of accordingly on 04.01.2018.