2018 (6) TMI 392 - AT - Customs

Import of Restricted item - old and used cathode ray tube imported into India without specific licence or permission - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - There is no dispute as to the fact that the goods are covered under Hazardous Waste Management Handling Rules, 2008 and having been imported without specific licence from the authorities they are liable for confiscation - Confiscation and redemption fine upheld. Penalty imposed on the firm ARJ Exim (India) - Held that - It needs to be upheld as the goods which were imported are held liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and ARJ Exim (India) having filed bill of entry is liable to be visited with penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - penalty upheld. Penalty of ₹ 1 lakh imposed on the individual Shri Manoj Kumar under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The adjudicating authority has not recorded any findings in order to come to such a conclusion that Shri Manoj Kumar had knowingly intentionally mis-declared the goods with respect to the description - penalty not warranted. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Redemption fine on confiscation of imported TV sets, penalties under Customs Act, 1962

The judgment pertains to appeals against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai-I regarding redemption fine on confiscation of TV sets imported and penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The issue revolves around the import of old and used cathode ray tube TV sets without the required permission or license from the Ministry of Environment. The firm, M/s ARJ Exim (India), sought re-export of the goods, which was permitted, but subject to payment of redemption fine. The lower authorities held the goods liable for confiscation under relevant laws, and the firm liable for penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Regarding the penalty on the firm, ARJ Exim (India), the Tribunal upheld it as the goods were found liable for confiscation under specific sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate and in line with Tribunal standards. Thus, the penalty on the firm was upheld, and their appeal was rejected.

In the case of the individual, Shri Manoj Kumar, a penalty of ?1 lakh was imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence to suggest that Shri Manoj Kumar knowingly mis-declared the goods. The bill of entry indicated mis-declaration, but Shri Manoj Kumar claimed ignorance about the nature of the imported TV sets. As a result, the penalty imposed on him was deemed unwarranted, and his appeal was allowed. The Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 114AA for Shri Manoj Kumar.

In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the penalty on the firm upheld, and the penalty on the individual, Shri Manoj Kumar, set aside due to lack of evidence of intentional mis-declaration.