2017 (9) TMI 903 - AT - Customs

Redemption Fine - penalty - mis-declaration of classification of goods - undervaluation - Held that - the Assistant Commissioner (Import) has observed that the charge of mis-declaration and mis-clasification is not sustainable against the appellant. Redemption fine - Held that - there is no mis- declaration, therefore, provision of Section 111 (m) are not invokable to the facts of the case. In that circumstances, no redemption fine is imposable on the appellant. Penalty - Held that - provision of the Section 112 (a) has been invoked which provides that if any goods which is prohibited goods, in that case penalty is imposable. Admittedly, the goods in question are not prohibited goods, therefore, provision of Section 112 (a) (i) of the Act are not applicable to the facts in this case. Redemption fine and penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in trading of various steel sheets, imported lamination cores declared under RITC No. 85049010. A Chartered Engineer's report indicated the steel strips could be used for making transformer cores, challenging the mis-declaration claim. The Adjudicating Authority alleged mis-declaration, leading to a show cause notice for duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty. The appellant sought re-export during proceedings, allowed on payment of fine and penalty. The appellant argued proper classification based on supplier's declaration and Chartered Engineer's report. The Assistant Commissioner's report supported the steel strips' utility for transformer cores, undermining mis-declaration charges. Mis-declaration and mis-classification claims were deemed unsustainable. Goods were held liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, but as no mis-declaration was found, no redemption fine was imposed. Citing a Supreme Court case, redemption fine was deemed inapplicable for re-exported goods. The penalty under Section 112(a) was found inapplicable as the goods were not prohibited, and no deliberate violation was evident. The Tribunal emphasized penalties for deliberate violations, which were absent in this case, leading to penalty dismissal. Consequently, redemption fine and penalty were deemed inapplicable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.