2022 (10) TMI 148 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - import of Carnet - goods cannot be re-exported within stipulated time - contravention of provisions of N/N. 04/2018 Cus. dated 18.01.2018 - HELD THAT - The goods in question were imported for a temporary purpose under a Carnet and applicable Notification with the clear condition of being re-exported within 2 months. Apparently the said period of two months was allowed to be extended by the competent authority. It is observed that the goods still could not be re-exported within the extended period that another request dated 18.12.2019 was made by the appellant for further extension of time. The appellant had quoted Covid Pandemic as a reason for the impugned delay due to which the training with reference to imported survey model CMS-V-500 with accessories could not be completed by 20.03.2020 whereafter was the nationwide lockdown w.e.f. 24.03.2020. In the present case the extended time limit to re-export the goods expired on 21.12.2019. Though request for further extension was made on 18.12.2019 but the same was not accepted. Hence, the goods were required to be re-exported on 21.12.2019. By this date there was no COVID situation in India. The order of Supreme Court and the Ordinance of Ministry of Law and Justice give relief of time extension for such actions, under specified Act, which were to be completed or complied with after 20th March, 2020. Thus, it is clear that the Notification No.04/2018 has been violated. The very perusal makes it clear that the violation of the Notification No.04/2018 by the appellant gets covered under said provision. There are no infirmity in the order directing confiscation of these goods giving an option of paying the redemption fine (redemption fine already deposited and the impugned goods stands already re-exported). Commissioner (Appeals) is observed to have been meticulous while reducing the redemption fine from Rs.2.5 Lakhs to Rs.50,000/- on the ground of no malafide on the part of appellant. Hence, the said order is held to be reasonable and justified. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Extension of time for re-export under Notification No.04/2018.
3. Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on re-export deadlines.
4. Compliance with Carnet conditions and consequences of non-compliance.
5. Reduction of redemption fine by Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 1: Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant imported goods under a Carnet for temporary admission under Notification No.04/2018, with a condition to re-export within 2 months. Despite an extension, the goods were not re-exported within the specified time. The Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the violation of the notification warranted confiscation, with an option to pay redemption fine.

Issue 2: Extension of time for re-export under Notification No.04/2018:
The appellant requested extensions for re-export due to delays, citing the Covid-19 pandemic as a reason for non-compliance. However, the extended time limit expired before the pandemic situation in India. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to re-export within the stipulated or extended period, leading to a violation of Notification No.04/2018.

Issue 3: Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on re-export deadlines:
The Tribunal acknowledged the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic on meeting legal deadlines. It referenced an order by the Supreme Court and an ordinance by the Ministry of Law and Justice, providing relief for actions due after March 20, 2020. However, in this case, the extended re-export deadline had lapsed before the pandemic situation, leading to non-compliance.

Issue 4: Compliance with Carnet conditions and consequences of non-compliance:
The appellant argued that the Carnet was guaranteed by FICCI and had no provision for confiscation. However, the Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with notification terms once a benefit is availed. The failure to re-export within the specified period rendered the appellant liable for customs duties, interest, and penalties.

Issue 5: Reduction of redemption fine by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine from Rs.2.5 Lakhs to Rs.50,000, considering no malafide intent on the appellant's part. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the appellant had already deposited the redemption fine and met the duty requirements. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal implications and decisions made by the Tribunal.