2021 (4) TMI 774 - AT - Customs

Levy of Redemption Fine and Penalty - import of Black matpe FAQ crop 2019 classifiable under 0713 3110 - restricted goods or not - Ministry of Commerce Industry (Department of Commerce) vide Notification No. O.S 1478(E) dated 29.03.19 - HELD THAT - In the present case the importer had admitted that he does not have a license from DGFT in respect of the restricted goods which means that the said goods have been imported by the appellant in contravention of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence liable for confiscation. Further it is found that the goods being restricted cannot be imported without proper license issued by the DGFT and in the present case, the appellant did not possess the license and hence the goods were liable for confiscation and the Commissioner has rightly allowed the redemption subject to payment of fine of ₹ 7,00,000/- under Section 125 and penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. There are no reasons to interfere in the impugned order which is hereby upheld - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 for importing restricted goods without a valid license.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an order for confiscation of goods, redemption on payment of fine of ?7,00,000, and a penalty of ?3,00,000 under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant imported Black Matpe FAQ Crop 2019 without a valid license from DGFT, contravening the import policy restrictions. The issue revolved around whether the imposed redemption fine and penalty were excessive.

The Tribunal noted that the imported goods were restricted under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, subject to an annual quota of 1.5 lakh MTs with specific conditions. As the appellant lacked the required license from DGFT, the goods were deemed to be imported in contravention of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, rendering them liable for confiscation. Since the appellant did not possess the necessary license for the restricted goods, the Commissioner rightly allowed redemption upon payment of the fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Considering the declared value of the goods at ?62,87,885.75, the Tribunal concluded that the imposed fine and penalty of ?7,00,000 and ?3,00,000, respectively, were not excessive. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal of the appellant. The decision was based on the importer's failure to comply with the licensing requirements for restricted goods, justifying the confiscation and associated fines and penalties.

In summary, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision regarding the redemption fine and penalty, emphasizing the importer's non-compliance with licensing regulations for the restricted goods. The judgment highlighted the legal basis for confiscation and the proportionality of the imposed fines, ultimately upholding the order and dismissing the appellant's appeal.