2024 (2) TMI 25 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods and redemption fine - Exemption under Advance Authorization Scheme in terms of N/N. 18/2015-Cus - import of copper concentrate - demand of IGST in terms of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The appellant had filed prior bill of entry on 23.06.2017 for import of copper concentrate under Advance Authorization Scheme. The cargo was scheduled to arrive on 30.06.2017. The appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No. 18/2015-Cus, which granted exemption from duty of customs including CVD or SAD. For some reasons, the ship got delayed and arrived on 01.07.2017, by when the new GST regime was introduced. With effect from 01.07.2017, IGST became payable on imports. It seems both the importer as well as revenue were un-aware of these changes. The discharge of cargo commenced on 06.07.2017, after obtaining permission of the Customs Officer and was completed on 08.07.2017. As there is no space in the customs area, the goods were directly transferred to appellant s premises as was the regular practice. The assessment of bill of entry was make on provisional basis on account of the valuation issued which was to be finalized after testing of goods. There was no mala fide involved in the instant case from the appellants. The entire procedure happened in supervision of the Customs Authorities. As soon as the appellant got to know about the changes in legislation they paid the duty and subsequently also paid the interest. The discharge of cargo commenced on 06.07.2017 with the permission of customs officer. From the facts of the case it is apparent that what happened in the instant case was a matter of regular practice. It was not as if the revenue was not aware that goods cannot be stored in jetty and have to be directly transferred to the factory premises. It all happened with the concurrence of the revenue and under close supervision. The entire IGST and interest thereon stands paid by appellant. The process of payment of IGST and interest was initiated by appellants themselves. In these circumstances initiating penal proceeding and invocation of extended period against the appellant is totally un-warranted. In the instant case also there is no seizure or provisional release of goods. In these circumstances, confiscation and imposition of redemption fine cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order against co-noticee also cannot succeed. There are no merit in the impugned order - The same is set aside, and appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the confiscation of goods, demand of IGST, interest, and imposition of penalty, along with appeals filed against the imposition of penalty by other parties.

Confiscation of Goods and Demand of IGST:
The appellant, a company, filed prior Bills of Entry for the import of copper concentrate claiming exemption under the Advance Authorization Scheme. Due to a delay in the arrival of the vessel, IGST became payable on imports from 01.07.2017. The appellant realized the IGST was not exempted and requested re-assessment, paying IGST and interest immediately. The department granted out of charge and finalized the bill of entry without further demand. The appellant argued no short payment occurred, as IGST was paid before finalization. The Tribunal found no mala fide intent, as the procedure was supervised by Customs Authorities, and the appellant promptly paid the duty and interest.

Imposition of Penalty:
An appeal was made against the penalty imposed on Dahej Harbour and Infrastructure Ltd. for allowing clearance of goods without proper authorization. The Tribunal observed that the violation was unintentional, considering the introduction of IGST on the same day. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated against the appellant, claiming extended period to demand IGST, which was already paid. The Tribunal found the appellant's actions were in line with regular practice and under the supervision of revenue, making penal proceedings unwarranted.

Confiscation of Goods and Redemption Fine:
The impugned order sought to confiscate goods cleared in 2017, imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 15 crore. However, the Tribunal held that confiscation and redemption fine cannot be sustained without seizure or provisional release of goods. Citing precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that no redemption fine is payable without such events. Therefore, the order for confiscation and imposition of the redemption fine was set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the appeals. The judgment highlighted the lack of mala fide intent in the appellant's actions, the unintentional nature of violations, and the regular practice followed in the clearance of goods, leading to the decision to overturn the penalties and confiscation imposed.