2019 (11) TMI 1285 - AT - Customs

Recovery of Customs Duty short/not paid - imposition of penalties - Advance License for duty free import of various goods including 4464 pieces of Ball Bearings - import of various type of bearings, which were never used for the manufacture of export goods - HELD THAT - Accept for making a bald and vague assertion that adjudicating authority had failed to give any findings on facts or case laws on the basis of which he had arrived at the conclusion in para 34(f) of the impugned order, that the respondents were bonafide transferee, revenue has failed to state the fact and case laws which were to be considered and have not been considered by the adjudication commissioner - Commissioner has in his order at para 26C recorded that there was some collusion between the person procuring and getting the licenses amended fraudulently and the importer but has still concluded in para 34(f) against holding them they were bonafide transferees. In the appeal memo we do not find anything stated by which this finding of the Commissioner can be challenged. No appeal could be considered on the basis of such vague statements made in the appeal memo. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation and recovery of customs duty.
2. Imposition of interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Imposition of penalties under Sections 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Validity of the bonafide transferee status of importers.
7. Joint and several liability for customs duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation and Recovery of Customs Duty:
The Commissioner confirmed the customs duty on various goods covered under multiple bills of entry, amounting to a total of ?82,06,168/-. The duty was to be recovered under the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the duty determined by the adjudicating authority is a normal consequence of the redemption of confiscated goods, as per the provisions contained in Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Imposition of Interest:
Interest at the applicable rate on the confirmed customs duty amount was also demanded under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld this imposition of interest as a consequence of the confirmed duty liability.

3. Confiscation of Goods:
The goods in question, valued at ?68,21,564/- CIF, were confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had allowed the release of confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine, which is consistent with the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Imposition of Redemption Fine:
A redemption fine was imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, in lieu of confiscation. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre, which clarified that the duty is to be paid by the person who seeks the release of the goods on payment of redemption fine.

5. Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties were imposed on M/s. Brimco Plastic Machinery Pvt. Ltd. and its director under Sections 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Shri Anil Garodia and others on merits, as per the final order dated 17.10.2017.

6. Validity of Bonafide Transferee Status:
The adjudicating authority had dropped proceedings against the actual importers, holding them as bonafide transferees. The revenue argued that the adjudicating authority failed to provide findings on facts or case laws to support this conclusion. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal, noting that vague assertions without specific facts or case laws cannot form the basis of an appeal.

7. Joint and Several Liability for Customs Duty:
The Tribunal noted that at the material time, there was no provision in the Customs Act, 1962, for confirmation of demand severally and jointly against co-noticees in proceedings initiated by a common show cause notice. The Tribunal cited various decisions, including those of the CESTAT and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which held that demands cannot be confirmed jointly and severally.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue and upheld the order of the Commissioner, which included the confirmation of customs duty, imposition of interest, confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalties. The Tribunal emphasized that any duty liability arising from the redemption of confiscated goods must be borne by the person seeking redemption, and that vague assertions without specific facts or case laws cannot support an appeal. The cross-objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of.

← Previous Next →