2021 (11) TMI 959 - AT - Customs

Non-imposition of redemption fine - redemption fine not imposed on the ground that the goods were not available for confiscation - HELD THAT - As regards Revenue s contention that since the appellant had executed Bond under the Advance License Scheme, the goods shall be treated as released under Bond, therefore, the redemption fine could have been imposed, it is found that the Bond was executed exclusively for compliance of the condition of Exemption Notification No. 149/95-Cus. Bond was not executed for provisional release of the goods. It is undisputed fact that the goods were never seized nor released provisionally against execution of specific provisional release Bond. Therefore, it cannot be said that the goods were provisionally released against specific Bond. From the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WESTON COMPONENTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 2000 (1) TMI 45 - SC ORDER , it is clear that the goods were seized and subsequently released provisionally on an application made by the assessee and on execution of bond, therefore, the goods were provisionally released against specific bond for provisional release. However, in the present case, the goods were neither seized nor released provisionally on execution of provisional release bond. Therefore, the fact of the case in Weston Components is entirely different from the fact of the present case. Hence, ratio of Weston Components case shall not apply in the present case. There are no merit in the Revenue s appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Whether the adjudicating authority was correct in not imposing a redemption fine due to goods not being available for confiscation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Redemption Fine
The main issue in this case was whether the adjudicating authority was justified in not imposing a redemption fine on the appellant. The appellant argued that since they had violated the conditions of a specific notification under the Advance License Scheme, the goods cleared should be considered as released against a bond, thus warranting the imposition of a redemption fine. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Weston Components Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. However, the adjudicating authority did not impose the redemption fine, citing that the goods were not available for confiscation. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and found that the bond was executed for compliance with an exemption notification and not for the provisional release of goods. Since the goods were never seized or released provisionally against a specific bond, the Tribunal concluded that the redemption fine could not be imposed based on the facts of the case.

Issue 2: Application of Precedent
The Tribunal further examined the applicability of the Weston Components case cited by the Revenue. The Weston Components judgment highlighted a scenario where goods were seized and subsequently released provisionally on the execution of a bond. In contrast, in the present case, the goods were neither seized nor released provisionally against a bond. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction in facts between the two cases, asserting that the Weston Components case did not align with the circumstances of the current case. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the Weston Components precedent was not applicable in the present situation.

Final Decision
After careful consideration of the arguments presented by the appellant and the absence of representation from the respondent, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority to not impose a redemption fine. The Tribunal concurred with the adjudicating authority's reasoning that since the goods were not available for confiscation and were not provisionally released against a specific bond, the redemption fine could not be imposed. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision of the adjudicating authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and interpretation of the legal provisions, along with the examination of relevant precedents, led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the upholding of the adjudicating authority's decision regarding the non-imposition of a redemption fine in this case.