2024 (6) TMI 59 - AT - Customs

Imports 'Prime Pre-painted Steel Coils (Non Alloy) - Restricted goods or not - Violation of policy conditions imposed by the DGFT - Minimum Import Price (MIP) for the impugned goods as fixed vide Notification No. 38/2015-2020 - Confiscation of goods u/s 111(d) - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), sufficient reasons have not been given for imposing the redemption fine and penalty. Further, the impugned order dated 27.07.2013 relating to the same impugned goods, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically held that there was no attempt by the appellant to mis-declare the description or transaction value; and consequently the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also set aside the imposition of redemption fine, but still retained the penalty imposed u/s 112(a) of the Act. Further, once the confiscation is set aside, then the question of imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Act does not arise. Here, it is pertinent to refer to Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, there was no malafide intention to evade duty on the part of the appellant and hence, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable in view of the various decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant; particularly the decision of this Tribunal in the case of John Deere India Pvt Ltd. 2017 (12) TMI 292 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , wherein it has been held that when the issue relates to interpretation then the goods are not liable to confiscation and no redemption fine is imposable on the said goods and consequently no penalty is imposable on the appellant. The appeals were allowed, and both impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief as per law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant imported 'Prime Pre-painted Steel Coils (Non Alloy)' with a declared CIF price of USD 485 per MT, which was below the Minimum Import Price (MIP) of USD 752 per MT set by DGFT Notification No. 38/2015-2020 dated 05.02.2016. The department argued that the goods were imported in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 and were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that the goods were imported against a contract dated 31.12.2015, with advance payments made before the notification date, and that the notification was not applicable to their case. However, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods, which was later upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 08.10.2018 but set aside in the order dated 27.07.2023.

2. Imposition of Redemption Fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- for each Bill of Entry in the orders dated 07.04.2016 and 13.05.2016. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this in the order dated 08.10.2018 but set aside the redemption fine in the subsequent order dated 27.07.2023. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not provided sufficient reasons for imposing the redemption fine in the 2018 order and had acknowledged in the 2023 order that there was no attempt by the appellant to mis-declare the description or transaction value. Consequently, the Tribunal found that once confiscation is set aside, the imposition of redemption fine does not arise.

3. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- for each Bill of Entry under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty in both orders dated 08.10.2018 and 27.07.2023. The Tribunal found that penalty under Section 112(a) can only be imposed for acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. Since the confiscation was set aside, the penalty was also deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal cited various precedents, including the decision in John Deere India Pvt Ltd and Pathange And Company, which supported the view that no penalty is imposable when there is no malafide intention or mis-declaration.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that both impugned orders were not sustainable in law. It set aside the orders, thereby allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had no malafide intention to evade duty and that the imposition of penalty was not justified in the absence of confiscation. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, setting aside both the confiscation and the penalties imposed.