2000 (9) TMI 851 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original regarding confiscation of Nickel Cathodes, alleged mis-statement of weight, redemption fine, and penalty imposition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Nickel Cathodes:
- M/s. Makali Metals Pvt. Ltd. challenged the Order-in-Original where 12 MTs. of Nickel Cathodes were confiscated for mis-statement regarding weight.
- The appellants declared the weight as 3 MTs. under each Bill of Entry, but upon examination, it was found to be 12 MTs.
- Adjudication proceedings were initiated for alleged misdeclaration to evade Customs duty.

2. Plea and Arguments:
- Appellants argued that the excess quantity was due to the mistake of the foreign supplier.
- They requested either clearance on payment of Customs duty or re-shipment to the supplier.
- The Commissioner's observation that the discrepancy should have been pointed out earlier was contested by the appellants.
- The appellants emphasized that they had no prior information or documents to detect the discrepancy beforehand.

3. Legal Arguments:
- The appellants' advocate cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that heavy fines should not be imposed without establishing mens rea.
- The advocate argued that the Commissioner's refusal to accept a higher price offered by the supplier indicated no deliberate misdeclaration by the appellants.
- It was contended that the Commissioner acted against the settled principle of law and encouraged revenue loss by imposing heavy fines and penalties without sufficient grounds.

4. Revenue's Position:
- The Revenue reiterated the reasoning behind the impugned order without providing new arguments or evidence.

5. Judgment and Reasoning:
- The judge found merit in the appellants' arguments, noting that they had no opportunity to verify the goods before examination.
- Lack of evidence revealing mala fides or deliberate misdeclaration led to the conclusion that confiscation, fine, and penalty were unwarranted.
- The judge set aside the impugned order, stating that action against the importer would be justified only with evidence of mala fides.

6. Final Decision:
- The appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was granted to the appellants, indicating that the confiscation, fine, and penalty were unjustified in the absence of evidence of deliberate misdeclaration or mala fides.