2019 (6) TMI 970 - AT - Customs

Prohibited goods or not - Betel Nuts - Confiscation - it was alleged that declared CIF value is less than ₹ 110 per Kilogram specified for Free Import by DGFT in the Notification No. 12(RE- 2013)/2009-2014 dt. 13/05/2013 - HELD THAT - An identical issue has been considered by the very same Bench in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.) , W.B., KOLKATA AND ORS. VERSUS GOLD INTERNATIONAL AND ORS. 2017 (11) TMI 1834 - CESTAT KOLKATA relied by the Consultant. The Tribunal in its earlier Order had considered the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/S INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING LTD. VERSUS CC ST, VISAKHAPATNAM-CUS 2016 (11) TMI 176 - CESTAT HYDERABAD . Finally, the Tribunal took the view that since the goods were cleared after collecting duty on the basis of tariff value, it cannot be held that the goods are prohibited. Confiscation of the imported Betel Nuts is set aside - Redemption fine and penalty are also set aside - the duty paid as per tariff value is upheld - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 12(RE- 2013)/2009-2014 regarding the import of Betal Nuts.
2. Whether the imported goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 12(RE- 2013)/2009-2014
The appellants imported Betal Nuts from Bangladesh, declaring a value below the specified CIF limit of ?110 per Kilogram as per the Notification. The Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation of the goods, citing contravention of the Notification by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The Tribunal considered the previous decision of the Kolkata Bench and the Hyderabad Bench, emphasizing that clearance of goods after collecting duty based on tariff value does not render the goods prohibited. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, upholding only the duty paid as per the tariff value.

Issue 2: Liability for confiscation under Section 111(d)
The key question was whether the Betal Nuts imported by the appellants, with a declared CIF value below the specified limit, were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal, following the precedent set by the Hyderabad Bench and its own earlier decision, concluded that the goods were not prohibited and, therefore, could not be confiscated under Section 111(d). The Tribunal clarified that while other situations under Section 111(a) to (p) might apply, Section 111(d) was not applicable in this case.

Issue 3: Applicability of redemption fine and penalty
The Tribunal addressed the imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was argued by the appellants that the goods were not prohibited and, therefore, should not be subject to confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the orders for redemption fine and penalty along with the confiscation order. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the goods were not prohibited and had been cleared after paying duty based on the tariff value.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by setting aside the order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, while upholding the duty paid as per the tariff value. The decision was guided by the interpretation of the relevant Notification and the provisions of the Customs Act, ensuring that the goods were not considered prohibited and, therefore, not subject to confiscation or additional penalties.