2011 (11) TMI 295 - AT - Customs

Import of refrigerant gases like R-22, R-134A, R-406A etc. in 600 gas cylinders without having necessary licence parties have admitted such import and have not retracted their statement - confiscation of gas cylinders proposed goods are non-available - penalties imposed Held that - The show-cause notice proposed confiscation of cylinders imported but there is no mention of any seizure of consignments imported . Thus, when the goods are not available, the questions of confiscating the same and the disposal of non-available goods by the department do not arise. Order of confiscation is set aside. Further, even if the goods are not available for confiscation, since the violations are established, penalties on the importer, and other parties are fully justified and the same should not have been set aside, though reduced to some extent.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by the department regarding confiscation and penalties.
2. Involvement of multiple parties in the import of prohibited goods.
3. Confiscation of gas cylinders and imposition of penalties by the original authority.
4. Cross objections filed in support of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved challenges by the department against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) related to confiscation and penalties imposed on various respondents. The appeals stemmed from a common order-in-original and dealt with imports made by different parties, including M/s Tallaja Impex and M/s ARK Logistics Services (P) Ltd.

2. The issues revolved around the import of prohibited goods, specifically refrigerant gases, by M/s Tallaja Impex and the involvement of individuals like Shri D. Lakshminarayana and Sri K. Sai Prasad. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the original authority's order, leading to the department's appeals before the Tribunal.

3. The original authority had ordered the confiscation of gas cylinders and imposed penalties on the involved parties, citing violations of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned these decisions, prompting the department to challenge the rulings before the Tribunal.

4. Cross objections were filed in support of the Commissioner (Appeals) order by M/s Tallaja Impex, seeking relief consistent with the decisions made by the Commissioner. The Tribunal considered all the appeals and cross objections comprehensively to reach a final decision.

In the detailed analysis of the judgment, the Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both the department and the respondents. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of gas cylinders imported by M/s Tallaja Impex, as admitted by the involved parties, despite the lack of physical seizure. Penalties were deemed appropriate due to the unauthorized importation and lack of necessary licenses.

Regarding M/s ARK Logistics Services (P) Ltd., the Tribunal found no specific complicity in the import of prohibited items and noted the previous revocation of the CHA license being set aside. As a result, the restoration of penalties imposed on the CHA was not warranted.

The Tribunal also addressed the penalties imposed on individuals like Sri Nageswara Rao, emphasizing the need for penalties based on involvement in malpractices. Ultimately, the Tribunal made specific decisions on the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and the outcomes of the appeals and cross objections, ensuring a comprehensive resolution of the legal issues at hand.