2017 (3) TMI 834 - AT - Customs

Non-imposition of redemption fine - Revenue is aggrieved that the adjudicating authority having held that the goods which were exported were ordered to be confiscated, but has not imposed any redemption fine in lieu of confiscated goods - Held that - It is undisputed that the goods against 69 shipping bills were exported long back and the goods were not available for confiscation. It is settled law that in the absence of goods available for confiscation redemption fine u/s 125 of the CA, 1962 is not imposable as the said redemption fine is in lieu of confiscation - the impugned order is correct, legal and does not require any interference - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Non-imposition of redemption fine on goods held liable for confiscation.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a dispute regarding the non-imposition of a redemption fine by the adjudicating authority on goods that were deemed liable for confiscation. The Revenue filed the appeal challenging the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva. Despite the absence of representation on behalf of the respondent, the Tribunal proceeded with the disposal of the appeal. The core issue revolved around the failure of the adjudicating authority to impose a redemption fine on goods ordered for confiscation. The Revenue contended that the goods were overvalued, with fictitious export documents prepared to obtain ineligible benefits. The adjudicating authority, while confiscating the goods, did not levy a redemption fine, prompting the Revenue's challenge.

The learned Authorised Representative argued that the adjudicating authority erred in not imposing a redemption fine despite the confiscation of the goods. Citing the case of Venus Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Customs 2006 (199) ELT 661, the Representative emphasized the necessity of imposing a redemption fine under the Customs Act, 1962, in such instances. The Tribunal carefully examined the submissions and reviewed the records to reach a decision.

The Tribunal's analysis focused on the legal aspect of imposing a redemption fine in cases of confiscation. It clarified that redemption fines are applicable only when confiscated goods are available for redemption. Since the goods in question were not present for confiscation, the Tribunal held that the imposition of a redemption fine was unwarranted. According to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, redemption fines are levied in lieu of confiscation, making it essential for the confiscated goods to be available for redemption. As the goods were not available for confiscation, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision not to impose a redemption fine. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the impugned order as legally sound and correct, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the correctness of the adjudicating authority's decision regarding the non-imposition of a redemption fine due to the unavailability of confiscated goods for redemption. The judgment highlighted the legal principle that redemption fines are only applicable when confiscated goods can be redeemed, emphasizing the specific conditions under which such fines can be imposed under the Customs Act, 1962.