1999 (12) TMI 218 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under the DEPB scheme
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act
3. Applicability of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act
4. Mis-declaration of goods in the Shipping Bill
5. Legal basis for confiscation and penalty
6. Judicial precedents on confiscation and penalty

Classification of goods under the DEPB scheme:
The appellants exported goods described as "Multi Colour Printed Books" to South Africa under the Duty Exemption Passbook Benefit (DEPB) scheme. The issue arose when the Dy. Commissioner of Customs found the goods to be books without multi-color printing, although they had a multi-color cover. The question was whether these goods could be classified as "multi-color printed books" under the DEPB scheme.

Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act:
The Dy. Commissioner held the entire quantity of books liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, along with imposing a penalty under Section 114. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision but reduced the redemption fine and penalty. The main contention was whether the confiscation and penalty were justified under the Customs Act.

Applicability of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act:
The appeal challenged the applicability of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act to the goods in question, arguing that there was no prohibition on the export of these goods under the Act or any other law at the relevant time. The question was whether the confiscation was lawful under this provision.

Mis-declaration of goods in the Shipping Bill:
The appeal raised concerns about the mis-declaration of goods in the Shipping Bill and whether such mis-declaration warranted confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act. The argument focused on whether the mis-declaration justified the actions taken by the customs authorities.

Legal basis for confiscation and penalty:
The learned advocate contended that the confiscation and penalty were not valid as the goods were not prohibited for export under the Customs Act or any other law. Citing a Supreme Court case, it was argued that confiscation based on mis-declaration was unsustainable if the goods were not prohibited.

Judicial precedents on confiscation and penalty:
The advocate relied on various judicial precedents, including a Supreme Court decision and a Tribunal ruling, to support the argument that confiscation and penalty were unwarranted in this case. The legal basis for imposing penalties and confiscating goods without prohibition under the law was extensively discussed.

In a detailed analysis, the Tribunal found that there was no prohibition on the export of the goods under the Customs Act or any other law at the relevant time. Therefore, the confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act was deemed inapplicable. Citing legal precedents, including a Supreme Court case and a Tribunal decision, the Tribunal concluded that the confiscation of the goods based on mis-declaration in the Shipping Bill was unsustainable. As there was no legal basis for the confiscation, the imposition of the penalty was also deemed unwarranted. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal, providing consequential reliefs to the appellants.