2017 (5) TMI 1001 - AT - Customs

Violation and misuse of DEEC scheme - confiscation - redemption fine - goods could not be confiscated as not available - Held that - the imported goods are released to the respondent on the condition that the same will be used for the specified purpose and a Bond is executed by the appellant. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the goods are unconditionally released to the respondent - it cannot be said that the goods could not be confiscated - matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for determination of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Violation and misuse of DEEC scheme, demand of duty, imposition of penalty, liability to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, appeal for confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order of the Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai regarding violation and misuse of the DEEC scheme. The impugned order confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty but did not confiscate the goods as they were not available. The Commissioner held that the goods were liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue sought confiscation of the goods and imposition of a redemption fine.

2. The Revenue's representative relied on various case laws, including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vibhuti Exports and the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Harbans Lal. It was highlighted that the appellant had executed a Bond and Bank Guarantee for imports under the DEEC scheme, subject to actual use and conditions. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Weston Components Ltd. was also cited.

3. Despite notice, no one appeared for the respondents during the proceedings.

4. The Member (Technical) examined the submissions and records. Referring to Notification No. 30/97, it was noted that imported goods were released to the respondent under specified conditions, with a Bond executed by the appellant. Citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's observation in the Weston Components case, it was emphasized that the release of goods on bond execution did not preclude the authorities from imposing a redemption fine if irregularities were found justifying confiscation.

5. Consequently, the Member (Technical) concluded that the goods could be confiscated, overturning the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for the determination of a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation, highlighting the legal principles governing the release of goods under bond and the authority's power to levy redemption fines.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, providing a detailed insight into the case's legal complexities and outcomes.