2019 (9) TMI 845 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - imposition of penalty - import of CPU Board - old and second hand goods - Revenue has submitted that even though the value of the imported goods was more than ₹ 2.00 lakhs, the appellant instead of filing regular Bill of Entry chose to file Form V Bill of Entry even though the imported goods were old and second hand goods - HELD THAT - The appellant has made an attempt to make out a case that imposition of penalty on them is arbitrary and harsh, as they did not have any intention for evasion of duty on account of revisions of assessable value. Also, referring to the meaning of old and second hand machinery, they were of the view that no restriction is provided in the policy and it is freely importable. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 127/Mumbai-III/2010 dated 20.12.2010
- Imposition of penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Adherence to Regulation 13 of the Courier Import and Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998
- Consideration of grounds for appeal regarding penalty imposition
- Interpretation of old and second-hand machinery import policy

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 127/Mumbai-III/2010 dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), CSI Airport, Mumbai. The case involved the imposition of a penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant initially filed Form V Bill of Entry for imported CPU Board valued at ?2,58,961, which was later enhanced to ?2,76,089 by the assessing authority. The adjudicating authority directed confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of ?1.00 lakh and imposed a penalty of ?25,000 on the appellant. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to the present appeal.

The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to adhere to Regulation 13 of the Courier Import and Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, by choosing to file Form V Bill of Entry instead of a regular Bill of Entry for goods valued over ?2.00 lakhs, which were old and second-hand. The Revenue contended that the penalty imposition was justified based on non-compliance with the regulations. The Revenue cited a previous judgment in the appellant's case to support their argument.

The Tribunal, after considering the grounds of appeal and submissions from both sides, upheld the impugned order. The appellant's argument that the penalty imposition was arbitrary and harsh due to lack of intent for duty evasion was dismissed. The Tribunal referred to Regulation 13, emphasizing the obligation for authorized couriers to exercise due diligence in submitting accurate information for clearance of goods. The Tribunal noted that Customs detected misdeclaration based on weight discrepancies, indicating a lack of due diligence on the part of the Courier Agency. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition, citing a previous finding in similar circumstances and dismissed the appeal for being devoid of merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision affirmed the penalty imposition on the appellant for non-compliance with Regulation 13 of the Courier Import and Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, emphasizing the importance of due diligence in customs clearance processes.