2024 (4) TMI 124 - AT - Customs

Levy of redemption fine and penalty - valuation of imported goods - brass scrap - import of brass scrap in the guise of aluminium scrap - enhancement of value - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned order, there is no market survey conducted by the adjudicating authority. However, it has to be noted that the appellant is not contesting the enhancement of value of the goods. Further, there is no evidence put forward by department to conclude that there was any deliberate intention on the part of appellant to import brass scrap. The purchase order and other documents show that the importer had placed the order only for import of Aluminium scrap. Due to the urgent requirement, the appellant sought for release of the goods. This does not indicate that they had placed order for import of brass scrap. The redemption fine and penalty imposed are on the higher side. The redemption imposed is reduced to Rs.2,50,000/- and the penalty imposed is reduced to Rs.20,000/-. The impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the redemption fine and penalty - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved: Misdeclaration of goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Misdeclaration of Goods: The appellant declared goods as "Aluminium scrap tense" in a Bill of Entry, supplied by M/s. Zaina Exporters Pte Ltd., Singapore. Upon examination, it was found to be a mix of Aluminium and Tin coated brass. The Docks Officers reported the consignment contained 75% Aluminium and 17280 kgs of brass scrap. The PSI certificate had a typographical error, leading to post-shipment inspection for radiation, which was within permissible levels.

Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty: The adjudicating authority held the misdeclared goods liable for confiscation and enhanced their value under Section 112(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. A redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 125 and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 112(a) were imposed. The appellant challenged only the redemption fine and penalty, not the value enhancement. The appellant argued that the redemption fine lacked details of a market survey as required by law. The penalty was contested on grounds that the mix of brass in the scrap was not deliberate.

Resolution: The Bench noted the absence of a market survey in the adjudicating authority's order and found no evidence of deliberate intent to import brass scrap. Considering the facts, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 2,50,000 and the penalty to Rs. 20,000. The appeal was partly allowed on these terms. The effort of the assisting counsel was appreciated for helping in the absence of the appellant.

Final Decision: The impugned order was modified to reduce the redemption fine and penalty, acknowledging the appellant's original intent to import only Aluminium scrap.