2000 (5) TMI 371 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess lot of cut and polished emerald.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty.

Analysis:
1. Confiscation of excess lot of cut and polished emerald:
The case involved a post parcel containing cut and polished emerald received at the Foreign Post Office, Jaipur. The parcel was found to contain 10 lots of emerald, out of which 9 lots matched the export invoice and G.R. Form. However, one lot was in excess and not accounted for in the export documentation. The Commissioner adjudicated the proceedings and ordered the confiscation of the excess lot of emerald under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the confiscation order, a lenient view was taken, allowing for re-export of a portion of the emeralds on payment of a Redemption Fine and imposition of a personal penalty.

2. Imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty:
The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade customs duty, attributing the excess emerald to a mistake by the importer. The appellant highlighted previous decisions where redemption fines were not imposed in similar circumstances. The Revenue, however, contended that the cited decisions were not applicable as they involved first-time imports, unlike the present case where re-importation was permitted. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found that the decisions referenced by the appellant were relevant. It was held that there was no justification for imposing a redemption fine in this case, as the party had no intention to import the excess emerald, and it was an error on the part of the exporter. Consequently, the redemption fine was set aside, but the personal penalty was upheld at Rs. 1,000. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of confiscation of excess emerald and the imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the redemption fine while upholding the personal penalty. The decision was based on the lack of intent to evade customs duty and previous precedents where redemption fines were not imposed in similar circumstances.