1997 (8) TMI 194 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Date of shipment discrepancy
2. Import policy restrictions and grace period
3. Imposition of fine and penalty

Analysis:

Issue 1: Date of shipment discrepancy
The case involved a consignment of mixed Brass Scrap metal imported by the Appellants from the USA. The Commissioner of Customs held that the goods were shipped on 10-5-1996, one day after the grace period expired. However, the Appellants argued that the actual date of shipment was 16-4-1996, supported by letters from the insurance company and the shipping agent. The Tribunal examined evidence, including a letter from the American President Lines, and concluded that the Bill of Lading date of 10-5-1996 was an error. The Tribunal found that the goods could not have reached Madras by 17-5-1996 if shipped on 10-5-1996, supporting the Appellants' claim. The Tribunal accepted the plea regarding the shipment date discrepancy and set aside the Commissioner's decision.

Issue 2: Import policy restrictions and grace period
The Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs for the one-day delay in shipment after the grace period. The Appellants argued that the goods were permissible for import even after 9-7-1996, citing relevant policy circulars. The Tribunal noted that the import policy had been liberalized, making the goods free for import from 11-7-1996. However, the Tribunal refrained from deciding on this aspect as it was not considered by the Commissioner. The Tribunal focused on the date of shipment discrepancy but acknowledged the potential support for the Appellants' case regarding import policy restrictions during the relevant period.

Issue 3: Imposition of fine and penalty
The Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs in lieu of confiscation and a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal considered the value of the goods and the one-day delay in shipment, ultimately setting aside the Commissioner's decision based on the date of shipment discrepancy. The Tribunal did not find grounds for penalty imposition, as the import was deemed to be made in a bona fide manner. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, setting aside the Commissioner's decision based on the discrepancy in the date of shipment. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of accurate documentation in import matters and considered the changing import policy landscape in reaching its decision.