2019 (3) TMI 200 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of export consignment - redemption fine - penalties - prohibited goods - red sanders - handicraft furniture and wood/ metals - Held that - The facts are not in dispute that the appellant filed a shipping bill containing 70 packages and on examination 6 packages were found of red sanders. On being asked about the invoice, the ld. Counsel for the appellant failed to produce the invoice before the Bench for proper examination of the contents of the invoice. Therefore, adverse view has been taken against the appellant and it is observed that in the guise of handicraft furniture and woods/ metals the appellant intended to export red sander. Therefore, red sander is absolutely confiscated - absolute confiscation upheld. Confiscation of handicraft furniture and wood/ metals - Held that - The red sander as well as the other handicraft items were owned by the appellant and shipped from their own premises for export of the same - handicraft furniture of wood/metal are liable for confiscation and can be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Penalty of ₹ 3.00 Lakhs under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is affirmed and penalty of ₹ 3.00 Lakhs is reduced under Section 114 (i) of the Act for attempting to export of prohibited goods. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of export consignment with part redemption allowed.
2. Valuation discrepancies in confiscation and penalties imposed.
3. Confiscation of red sanders and handicraft items.
4. Imposition of redemption fine and penalties under Customs Act, 1962.
5. Applicability of penalties under Sections 114(i) & 114(iii) of the Act.
6. Ownership and knowledge of exported goods.
7. Adverse inference due to lack of proper documentation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Export Consignment:
The appellant's appeal contested the confiscation of an export consignment due to the presence of prohibited red sanders among the goods. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of red sanders but allowed part redemption of other goods. The appellant argued against the confiscation, citing separate packaging of goods and previous Tribunal decisions. However, the Tribunal found the appellant's intention to export red sanders under the guise of handicraft items, justifying the confiscation.

2. Valuation Discrepancies and Penalties:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the valuation of goods and the penalties imposed. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in valuation but upheld the penalties. The appellant's arguments on the valuation and penalties were considered, leading to a reduction in the penalty amount imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Confiscation of Red Sanders and Handicraft Items:
The Tribunal confirmed the absolute confiscation of red sanders due to being a prohibited item. However, the confiscation of handicraft furniture and wood/metal items was challenged by the appellant based on separate packaging and ownership. The Tribunal differentiated previous cases and ruled in favor of confiscation due to the appellant's intent to export red sanders.

4. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalties:
The Tribunal imposed a redemption fine on the confiscated goods and penalties under Sections 114(i) & 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's arguments against the redemption fine and penalties were considered, resulting in adjustments to the penalty amounts imposed.

5. Applicability of Penalties under Customs Act:
The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of penalties under Sections 114(i) & 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on the confiscation of goods and the attempted export of prohibited items. The penalties were affirmed, albeit with a reduction in the penalty amount under Section 114(i).

6. Ownership and Knowledge of Exported Goods:
The appellant's claim of lack of knowledge regarding the presence of red sanders in the consignment was refuted by the Tribunal, emphasizing ownership and intent to export the goods. The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's ownership and involvement in shipping the goods for export.

7. Adverse Inference Due to Lack of Documentation:
The Tribunal noted adverse inference against the appellant due to the failure to produce proper documentation, such as the invoice, during the proceedings. This lack of documentation impacted the appellant's case, leading to adverse findings regarding the intent to export prohibited red sanders.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, detailing the Tribunal's decisions and considerations in the case.