2008 (11) TMI 265 - HC - Customs

Confiscation and penalty - Metal scrap - pre-shipment certificate - principles of unjust enrichment - whether arms, bombs and other explosive materials are imported into the country along with the scrap materials?

Issues:
1. Correcting the date of the order.
2. Appeal against the order dated 28-1-2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Regional Bench, Kolkata.
3. Confiscation of imported goods and penalty imposition for violation of import policy.
4. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Tribunal.
5. Legality of the Tribunal's decision and dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 1: Correcting the date of the order
The High Court granted leave to correct the date of the order.

Issue 2: Appeal against the Tribunal's order
The appellant imported goods from Surinam where no specified inspection agency was located. The Embassy of India in Surinam confirmed the absence of an inspection agency and stated that exports were inspected by Customs and certified by the local Chamber of Commerce. The appellant argued against confiscation and penal action, citing the absence of objectionable materials in the consignment. The import policy required a pre-shipment certificate to prevent the importation of dangerous materials. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the assessed value and the penalty to 5%, considering the lack of local inspection agency and no detection of explosive materials. The Tribunal warned of stricter actions for future violations. The High Court found the Tribunal's decision in accordance with the law and dismissed the appeal.

Issue 3: Confiscation of imported goods and penalty imposition
The Tribunal held that the appellants violated the import policy provisions, making the goods liable for confiscation and the appellants for penal action. Despite the violations, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty due to mitigating factors. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, finding no illegality or irregularity in the order.

Issue 4: Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Tribunal
The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the assessed value and the penalty to 5% due to factors like the absence of a local inspection agency and no detection of dangerous materials. The appellants claimed to have paid the fines and penalties, entitling them to refunds after adjustments. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the reduction of fines and penalties.

Issue 5: Legality of the Tribunal's decision and appeal dismissal
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was in compliance with the law, finding no grounds to admit the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and all parties were instructed to act on a signed copy of the order. Urgent copies of the order were to be provided upon application and compliance with formalities.

← Previous Next →