2018 (6) TMI 262 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of goods - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalties - Import of second-hand solder based inspection machine - appellant failed to declare the said second-hand solder based inspection machine and did not present proper procurement certificate for the clearance of goods - benefit of N/N. 52/2003 allowed holding that subsequently the appellant produced procurement certificate, etc. - Held that - It is an admitted fact that in the bill of entry which was presented there was no mention of the imported machinery 3D Solder Paste Inspection Machine . Even assuming that it is for an EOU, and there was change in transport mode still fact of non-declaration of the machinery in the bill of entry remains and in view of this I find that there is contravention/violation of provisions of Section 111(1) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the said machinery is liable for confiscation - Confiscation upheld. Redemption fine - penalties - Held that - Considering the value of the machine which was imported but not declared the redemption fine seems to be reasonable and does not require any interference - Since the confiscation of the machinery is upheld and the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is also upheld the consequent penalty on the appellant also needs to be upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Non-declaration of imported machinery in the bill of entry
- Confiscation of machinery under Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty
- Applicability of Notification No. 52/2003

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - III. The appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of second-hand machines claiming benefits under Notification No. 52/2003 for EOU. However, during examination, an old and used 3D solder paste inspection machine was found in excess, not covered in the procurement certificate. The adjudicating authority confiscated the machine under Section 111(1) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The first appellate authority extended the benefit of the notification but upheld the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties.

The appellant argued that they had procured a certificate but faced issues due to its address and sought amendment in the bill of entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty and confiscation were contested, claiming incorrect application of Sections 111(d) and (m). The AR supported the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal noted the non-declaration of the imported machinery in the bill of entry, even if meant for an EOU, and upheld the confiscation and penalties under Sections 111(1) and (m). The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decision, considering the value of the undeclared machine, upholding the redemption fine and consequent penalty on the appellant.

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was correct and did not warrant interference, ultimately rejecting the appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 02/05/2018.