2018 (6) TMI 941 - AT - Customs

Import of Restricted Item - hot rolled plates - N/N. 21/2002-Cus, Sr. No. 356 - failure to produce import License - Confiscation - Redemption fine - Penalty - Held that - In case of goods covered by the Bill of Entries dt. 02.02.2009 and 04.02.2009, the DGFT vide policy Circular No. 83 (RE 2008)/2004 2009 dt. 29.04.2009 has clarified that the goods imported for the period 21.11.2008 to 18.02.2009 shall be allowed to be imported without licence - the goods covered by aforesaid Bill of Entry are not liable for confiscation and therefore not liable for any redemption fine and penalty. As regard Bill of Entry dt. 21.02.2009, it is found that firstly the goods were contracted to be brought/ imported in India even before the restriction came into effect. Further the Appellant is Govt. of India undertaking and the goods could have been imported only after allotment of ship by the Ministry of Shipping. In such circumstances, it is not appropriate to impose such quantum of redemption fine in respect of said bill of entry No. 883767 dt. 21.02.2009 as the goods were not intended to be imported in violation of law. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, Sr. No. 356.
3. Interpretation of licensing notes and circulars by DGFT.
4. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of imported Hot Rolled Plates by the adjudicating authority under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The grounds for confiscation were based on the restriction on import of hot rolled plates as per Notification No. 63/(RE-2008)/2008-09 and a specific import license requirement as per DGFT clarification. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation with an option for redemption on a fine of Rs. 18 lakhs and imposed a penalty of &8377; 2 lakhs. The appeal challenged this decision.

2. The appellant argued for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, Sr. No. 356, emphasizing the licensing note and a circular by DGFT dated 29.04.2009. The circular allowed imports without a license for goods imported between 21.11.2008 and 18.02.2009. The appellant contended that two Bills of Entry fell within this period and should benefit from the circular. For the Bill of Entry dated 20.02.2009, the appellant presented detailed facts regarding the procurement process and shipment delays to support the claim that confiscation was unjustified.

3. The revenue authority reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the confiscation of goods. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the goods covered by Bills of Entry dated 02.02.2009 and 04.02.2009 were not liable for confiscation as per the DGFT circular clarifications. Regarding the Bill of Entry dated 20.02.2009, the Tribunal considered the circumstances, including the pre-restriction contract and delays in shipment, leading to a reduction in the redemption fine to &8377; 25,000 and setting aside of the penalty.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing the appeal in part. The decision was pronounced on 23/05/2018, with a reduction in redemption fine for the Bill of Entry dated 21.02.2009 and setting aside of the penalty. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the facts, legal provisions, and interpretations of circulars to determine the appropriate course of action in each instance of importation and confiscation.