2003 (11) TMI 210 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of container under Section 111(f) and 111(g) of the Customs Act.
2. Manifestation of goods in the container.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The issue of confiscation of the container under Section 111(f) and 111(g) of the Customs Act was considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The Customs Authority had ordered the confiscation of the container due to the non-manifestation of one Bill of Lading, considering it a deliberate contravention. However, the Tribunal found that since the container was manifested with one Bill of Lading notification, there was no objection for liability for confiscation under Section 111(g). Therefore, the liability for confiscation under Sections 111(f) and 111(g) could not be upheld, leading to the setting aside of the fine in lieu of confiscation.

2. Regarding the manifestation of goods in the container, it was noted that one of the two Bill of Ladings for the same consignee and same goods was not manifested due to a computer problem. The Tribunal observed that although the quantity was not accurately manifested, the goods were not prohibited, and there was no reason to suspect non-manifestation. As the other Bill of Lading was manifested for the same consignee and goods, the Tribunal concluded that this discrepancy could not be a cause for confiscation under Section 111(f).

3. Lastly, the issue of the imposition of a redemption fine and penalty was addressed. The penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on M/s. Tata NYK Ltd., who were not part of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that since M/s. Tata NYK Ltd. did not appeal, no orders on the penalty were passed. Consequently, the appeal regarding the redemption fine of Rs. 50,000 was allowed by setting it aside, providing the appellant with the consequent benefit and disposing of the appeal accordingly.