2014 (5) TMI 291 - AT - Customs

Liability for Confiscation of goods - Section 113(d) - Imposition of Penalty before exportation - Section 114 of the Customs Act - Non-possession of Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) Held that - Confiscation could not have been ordered and penalty u/s 114 cannot be sustained in view of the fact that at the time when penalty of Rs. 2000/- was imposed, goods were not exported or not even attempted to be exported - Filing a manual Shipping Bill was allowed thus, it cannot be said that there was an attempt of export contravening provisions of the law - Once filing a manual Shipping Bill is allowed, subsequent activities undertaken by exporter become perfectly legal and cannot be considered as illegal - Although this is not the basis on which Commissioner (A) has taken a view that goods are not liable to confiscation and penalty is not imposable, it is found this is the statutory position and cannot be ignored Thus, no merit found in appeal filed by Revenue Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of goods under Section 113(d) and imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on non-possession of Importer-Exporter Code (IEC).

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of the legality of confiscating goods and imposing penalties under Sections 113(d) and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 due to the non-possession of the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC). The Commissioner (Appeals) initially ruled that the appeal filed by the Revenue seeking confiscation of goods and penalty imposition was not sustainable because the absence of IEC does not automatically render the goods liable for confiscation.

The Tribunal delves into the specifics of the case, highlighting that the penalty was imposed before the filing of a Shipping Bill because the exporter did not possess the IEC and was permitted to submit a manual Shipping Bill. The Revenue contended that confiscation of goods and penalty imposition were warranted. However, the Tribunal determined that confiscation could not have been ordered in this scenario. It emphasized that the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be upheld as, at the time of penalty imposition, the goods had not been exported or even attempted to be exported. The Tribunal noted that the manual Shipping Bill was permitted by the Revenue, indicating compliance with the law, and subsequent actions by the exporter were legal. Despite the Commissioner's rationale differing, the Tribunal emphasized the statutory position, concluding that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal, and thus rejected it.

In essence, the judgment clarifies that the absence of an IEC does not automatically justify confiscation of goods or penalty imposition under the Customs Act, 1962. It underscores the importance of examining the specific circumstances and statutory provisions before determining the legality of such actions, ultimately emphasizing compliance with the law as a crucial factor in deciding on confiscation and penalty imposition.