1992 (5) TMI 126 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of imported goods.
2. Valuation of imported goods.
3. Imposition of personal penalty on the authorized signatory.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The appellants contested the confiscation of 1,51,000 pieces of zip fasteners, arguing that the goods were sent without their consent and that they had no import license. The tribunal found that the appellants had negotiated the shipment without a valid import license, as corroborated by statements and evidence. The tribunal upheld the confiscation, noting that the appellants' defense was not supported by any correspondence or documentation. The tribunal also rejected the appellants' request for re-export or to produce a license post-facto, emphasizing that no such license existed at the time of import.

2. Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellants argued that the Additional Collector erred by not providing a 33 1/2 % discount on the valuation of the goods, referencing a previous order (No. 836/87-A). The tribunal found that the assessable value declared by the appellants (Rs. 4,75,790/-) was accepted by the Additional Collector, who rejected the department's higher valuation (Rs. 16,00,000/-). The tribunal clarified that the discount referenced by the appellants was not applicable in this case, as the circumstances differed from the previous order. Thus, the tribunal upheld the valuation as assessed by the Additional Collector.

3. Imposition of Personal Penalty on the Authorized Signatory:
The tribunal was divided on whether the penalty imposed on Shri Anoop Sarin, the authorized signatory, should be upheld. The Additional Collector had penalized Shri Anoop Sarin but not the other two brothers involved in the negotiation. One member (Judicial) argued that since all three brothers were equally involved, imposing a penalty solely on Shri Anoop Sarin was unjustified. Another member (Technical) contended that Shri Anoop Sarin's active role warranted the penalty, irrespective of penalties on the other brothers.

The majority opinion, aligning with the Judicial Member, concluded that imposing a penalty on Shri Anoop Sarin alone, while not penalizing the other brothers, was inconsistent. Therefore, the penalty on Shri Anoop Sarin was set aside.

Final Order:
1. The confiscation and penalty imposed on M/s. Sarin Sons were upheld.
2. The penalty imposed on Shri Anoop Sarin was set aside, with consequential relief to him.
3. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the appeal of M/s. Sarin Sons dismissed and the appeal of Shri Anoop Sarin allowed.