2008 (1) TMI 151 - AT - Customs

Illegal import of metal scrap without obtaining pre-shipment certificate from specified agencies violation of EXIM policy Appellants plea that there was no availability of inspection agency at place of export, is not acceptable - importers could have requested Indian agency to conduct pre-shipment inspection, but they did not do so - subsequent check by officers after importation is not a substitute for pre-shipment certification - impugned goods are liable for confiscation & penalty

Summary

Issues involved:
Import of metal scrap without necessary pre-shipment certificate, confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, waiver of confiscation and penalty, violation of Import Policy, plea regarding higher valuation, reduction of redemption fine and penalty, refund of fines and penalties, challenge to valuation.

Analysis:
1. Import of metal scrap without necessary pre-shipment certificate:
The appeals involved the importation of metal scrap without the required pre-shipment certificate from specified agencies as per the Import Policy. The impugned goods were confiscated, but fines and penalties were allowed for release payment.

2. Waiver of confiscation and penalty, violation of Import Policy:
The appellants argued that since the imported goods were 100% examined by Indian Customs Authorities and did not contain objectionable materials specified in the Import Policy, confiscation and penal action should not have been taken. They cited a previous decision where similar confiscation and penalty were set aside.

3. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty, refund of fines and penalties:
After hearing both sides, the tribunal acknowledged the violation of the Import Policy by the appellants. However, considering the pleas made, such as non-availability of inspection agencies locally and the absence of explosive materials in the consignments, a lenient view was taken. The redemption fine was reduced to 10% of the assessed value, and the penalty was reduced to 5% with a caution for future contraventions. Appellants were entitled to refunds after adjusting the reduced fines and penalties.

4. Challenge to valuation and rejection of appeals:
The appellants raised a feeble plea regarding higher valuation adopted by the department in some cases. However, since they had waived the show cause notice and personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authorities, and had not challenged the valuation at the original level, the appeals were rejected, overruling the objection to the higher value adopted.

5. Final decision and pronouncement:
All nine appeals were partly allowed with the reduction of fines and penalties as determined by the tribunal. The decision was pronounced on 28-1-2008 by the tribunal members Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy and Shri D.N. Panda.