9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 732 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of goods - penalty - diversion of imported goods - violation of import conditions - plea of the appellant is that the re-export could not take place because the permission to re-export the goods was given late on 10.03.2012 and there has been no illegality committed by the appellant - Held that - the appellant had imported the impugned goods and had signed a re-export bond to reexport the goods within six months but the same was not done. After nine months, they applied for extension of the period of export for more six months, which was granted to them on 10.03.2011. Since they had themselves applied late for the extension, their argument that they could not re-export due to late permission appears fallacious. It is clear that there was a deliberate intent to take wrongful advantage of N/N. 158/95-Customs dt. 14.11.1995. Therefore, the conclusion that follows is that the appellant never intended to re-export the goods and just wanted to divert the goods, which is not the purpose for which the Notification has granted exemption. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant mis-utilized the provisions of the said Notification - confiscation upheld. The imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and imposition of personal penalty are justified - having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine and penalty are excessive - the quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Challenge against redemption fine and personal penalty imposed on the appellant. 2. Interpretation of Notification No. 158/95-Customs and re-export obligations. 3. Examination of intent to evade customs duty and diversion of goods. 4. Comparison with relevant case laws to determine applicability to the present case. 5. Justification of the imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty. 6. Assessment of the quantum of redemption fine and personal penalty. Interpretation of Notification No. 158/95-Customs and Re-export Obligations: The appellant had exported Caffeine (Anhydrous) under specific schemes but failed to re-export them within the stipulated period, leading to the imposition of duties and penalties. The appellant argued that the delay in re-export was due to late permission, but the tribunal found this argument fallacious as the goods were diverted and disposed of domestically. The tribunal concluded that the appellant misutilized the exemption provisions, leading to the rightful confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. Intent to Evade Customs Duty and Diversion of Goods: The tribunal noted that the appellant did not contest their duty liability but challenged the confiscation of goods and personal penalty. It was observed that the appellant diverted the goods without intent to re-export, as evidenced by the disposal of goods before the Department's visit. The deliberate nature of this diversion indicated a wrongful advantage taken by the appellant, justifying the penalties imposed. Comparison with Relevant Case Laws: The tribunal analyzed various case laws cited by both parties to determine their applicability. It was found that the appellant's case differed significantly from the cases cited, as those instances involved genuine efforts to fulfill export obligations, unlike the present situation where the diversion of goods was discovered only upon inspection. The tribunal concluded that the cited judgments did not align with the facts of the current case. Justification of Imposition of Redemption Fine and Personal Penalty: Considering the totality of facts, the tribunal upheld the imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty but deemed the original amounts excessive. Consequently, the quantum of redemption fine was reduced to &8377; 4 lakhs and the personal penalty to &8377; 6 lakhs, ensuring a balance between penalty imposition and the circumstances of the case. In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the duty demand uncontested by the appellant and modified the redemption fine and personal penalty amounts. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with re-export obligations under customs notifications and penalized the appellant for diverting goods without genuine intent to fulfill export requirements.
|
