2015 (11) TMI 1394 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Import of second hand or defective goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - Appellant have imported the consignment in question in compliance with the DGFT Public Notice No. 16/200409 dated 15.10.2004. Further the inspection certificate was also available on record which escaped the attention of the learned Commissioner leading to an erroneous conclusion. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to consequential relief in accordance with law. The adjudicating authority is directed to grant refund of the redemption fine and penalty deposited by the appellant as per Rules, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Original for confiscation of goods under Customs Act Sections 111(d) and 112(a) based on import violation.

Analysis:
1. Confiscation and Penalty Imposition: The appellant, M/s M.B. Tubes, appealed against an Order-in-Original confiscating 267.42 metric tons of imported goods valued at &8377; 69,53,587.4 under Sections 111(d) and 112(a) of the Customs Act. The goods were declared as "Secondary HR Coils and End Cuttings" from Canada, but it was found that the import violated port restrictions for such items under Chapter 72. The appellant had the option to redeem the goods by paying a fine of &8377; 12 lakhs along with a penalty of &8377; 4 lakhs.

2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant argued that the import complied with DGFT Public Notice No. 16/2004'09 dated 15/10/2004, which allowed the import of certain items without a license. The appellant highlighted the inspection certificate from an agency confirming the nature of the goods and absence of prohibited materials. Reference was made to previous tribunal judgments where similar imports were allowed based on compliance with public notices, setting aside confiscation orders.

3. Decision: After considering the arguments, the tribunal found that the appellant's import adhered to the public notice requirements, and the inspection certificate supported the nature of the goods. The tribunal concluded that the learned Commissioner had erred in passing the confiscation order. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was entitled to refund of the redemption fine and penalty. The adjudicating authority was directed to process the refund within 60 days from the date of the order.

4. Final Verdict: The tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's compliance with the public notice and the availability of the inspection certificate. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to regulatory requirements and proper documentation in import cases to avoid confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act.