2018 (8) TMI 966 - AT - Customs

Re-export of confiscated goods - Misdeclaration of imported goods - SAMSUNG Brand LED TVs - suppression of facts of supplier of goods, country of origin, BIS specification IPR - appellant has prayed for re-export of the goods - Held that - Only for the reason that the imported goods did not comply with the compulsory registration scheme of the Bureau of Indian Standards, it cannot be said that the goods are liable for absolute confiscation. The other models of Samsung Brand are registered under BIS and are BIS Compliant. The models imported by the Appellant were slightly different as the manufacturing company keep on changing the model number with some minor variations. This is the reason that the goods were found to be not registered under BIS. However, it is a vital fact that the goods were manufactured and sold by M/s Samsung Electronics who is already an established manufacturer of TV sets in India on mass scale. In such circumstances, only for the reason that the models imported by the Appellant were not registered under the BIS, absolute confiscation of goods is not correct. The absolute confiscation of the goods is set aside and goods are allowed to be re-exported on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2 lakhs - Penalty also reduced to ₹ 1 lac against M/s Raj Traders - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged mis-declaration and violation of BIS specifications in the import of SAMSUNG Brand LED TVs.
2. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalties.
3. Enhancement of goods' value and refusal of re-export request.
4. Legal arguments for re-export and comparison with previous judgments.

Issue 1: The case involved the import of SAMSUNG Brand LED TVs where Customs Authorities found discrepancies in the models imported not complying with BIS specifications. The goods were seized due to mis-declaration and non-compliance with Legal Metrology Act and Customs Valuation Rules.

Issue 2: The adjudicating authority held the imported goods liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 for various violations. While the proprietor was not penalized, the manager faced penalties for involvement in the import discrepancies.

Issue 3: The adjudicating authority enhanced the value of goods, refused re-export, and imposed penalties. The appellant sought re-export, arguing against absolute confiscation and excessive penalties, referencing similar cases where re-export was allowed.

Issue 4: The legal arguments centered on the permissibility of re-export, citing precedents and the lack of justification for absolute confiscation. The Tribunal considered the compliance of other Samsung models with BIS standards and allowed re-export on payment of redemption fine and reduced penalties, considering the goods' usability and lack of hazardous nature.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside absolute confiscation, permitted re-export of goods on payment of redemption fine, and reduced penalties based on the lack of intentional wrongdoing by the manager. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with BIS standards and Customs regulations while balancing penalties with the circumstances of the case.