2017 (6) TMI 1097 - HC - Customs

Redemption of goods - Whether the first respondent was justified in upholding the levy of redemption fine having concluded that the imported goods were indeed Heave Melting Scrap and therefore, not liable to confiscation? - Held that - it is quite clear that the Tribunal, both in the first and in the second round, returned a finding of fact that an incorrect declaration had been made inasmuch there was misdescription of the subject goods. The only concession, that the appellants obtained was with regard to the end use benefit provided via the Notification No.83/90, and since the appellants had furnished the end use certificate, which indicated that they had ultimately used 2275 Metric tons of scrap, as prescribed, that benefit was given to the appellants. The net effect of the said benefit was that 2275 Metric tons of scrap was amenable to a concessional rate of duty of 5% as against 20%. The subject goods were, thus, as held re-rollable scrap. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Justification of the Tribunal's conclusion regarding valuation, levy, and redemption fine with penalty on the Managing Director.
3. Justification of upholding the levy of redemption fine despite the imported goods being classified as Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Redemption Fine:
The appellant company imported 7544 Metric Tons of steel products, including 2900 Metric Tons of HMS. Upon inspection, it was found that 2275 Metric Tons were misdescribed as HMS instead of re-rollable scrap. The Commissioner of Customs directed confiscation of 2275 Metric Tons under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a redemption fine of ?20,00,000/- along with penalties of ?2,00,000/- each on the appellant company and its Managing Director. The Tribunal upheld these findings, leading the appellants to challenge the decision. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's approach, affirming the imposition of the redemption fine.

2. Justification of Tribunal's Conclusion on Valuation, Levy, and Penalty:
The Tribunal initially remanded the matter to the Commissioner to consider the benefit of Notification No.83/90, which allows for concessional duty rates if the scrap is used for melting purposes under supervision. The Commissioner, however, conducted de novo proceedings and reiterated that the 2275 Metric Tons were re-rollable scrap. The Tribunal, in its subsequent judgment, treated the scrap as melting scrap for duty assessment purposes but maintained the confiscation, fine, and penalties. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the Tribunal's findings of misdescription and incorrect declaration were factual and could not be disturbed. The benefit of concessional duty was granted due to compliance with the end-use bond requirement.

3. Justification of Levy of Redemption Fine Despite Classification as HMS:
The Tribunal's decision to treat the 2275 Metric Tons as melting scrap for duty purposes while upholding the confiscation and penalties was challenged by the appellants. They argued that treating the scrap as HMS should preclude confiscation and penalties. The High Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the Tribunal's findings of misdescription justified the confiscation and penalties. The concessional duty benefit was a separate issue based on compliance with specific conditions. Thus, the Tribunal's approach was deemed correct, and the High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decisions.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's findings of misdescription and the consequent imposition of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties. The benefit of concessional duty was granted due to compliance with the end-use bond requirement. The questions of law were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the Assessee, with no order as to costs.