2023 (2) TMI 241 - AT - Customs

Reduction in quantum of redemption fine and penalty - mis-declaration of imported goods - goods found as old used Hard Disc Drive 500 GB for desktop laptop and the quantity was also found as 20,512 against the declared 8,000 in the import documents - 2000 pcs of the RAM were also found which were not declared in the import documents - HELD THAT - There is no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by revenue, as there can be no estoppel against law. The appellant have exercised their statutory right of appeal which is not liquidated, as they have submitted at the adjudication stage they are ready to pay fine and penalty. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:
The issue in this appeal is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in reducing the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. The case involved an importer who filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods, which were later found to be old & used Hard Disc Drives and additional undeclared RAM. The goods were seized by the customs officers. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, in the Order-in-Original, noted that it was a genuine mistake by the overseas supplier and allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 30 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that there was no deliberate attempt to import restricted goods and requested a reduction in the fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 1 lakh and the penalty to Rs. 50,000, considering the genuine mistake made by the importer.

The revenue, being aggrieved by the reduction in fine and penalty, filed an appeal arguing that the importer had agreed to pay the imposed amounts and had re-exported the goods after depositing the fine and penalty. The revenue contended that the appellant did not lodge any letter of protest before depositing the amounts and filing the appeal. The revenue sought the setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal and the restoration of the Order-in-Original. The counsel for the respondent-importer opposed the appeal, emphasizing that there was no deliberate import of restricted goods and the mistake was made by the overseas shipper-exporter. The counsel argued that the right to appeal is not defeated even if the importer agreed to pay the fine and penalty during adjudication. The counsel urged that there was no error in the Order-in-Appeal and requested the dismissal of the revenue appeal.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Member (Judicial) found no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue. It was noted that there can be no estoppel against law, and the appellant had the statutory right to appeal, even though they expressed readiness to pay the fine and penalty during adjudication. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reduce the redemption fine and penalty.