2003 (9) TMI 602 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal Rules in Favor of Appellant: Confiscation Set Aside, Redemption Fine Overturned

The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 2,41,35,655 under Sections 113(i) and (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the goods were ... Confiscation, fine and penalty Issues:1. Confiscation of goods under Section 113(i) and (ii)2. Imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 19623. Penalty imposition under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962Confiscation of Goods under Section 113(i) and (ii):The appeal challenged an order confirming a demand and confiscating goods valued at Rs. 2,41,35,655 under Section 113(i) and (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner held that Industrial gaskets were not eligible for the duty drawback under a specific sub-serial number of the Drawback Schedule. The appellant contended that they had declared Ring Joint Gaskets, not meant for automobiles, and had a genuine belief in claiming the drawback. They promptly paid the duty amount upon realization of the error. The Tribunal noted that the goods were correctly declared in the shipping bills, invoices, and there was no misdeclaration. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's plea, emphasizing that prior to a certain date, all types of gaskets were eligible for drawback. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of goods and the redemption fine imposed.Imposition of Redemption Fine under Section 125:The Tribunal examined the issue of imposing a redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that since there was no misdeclaration and the goods were correctly declared, no penalty should apply. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's submission, emphasizing that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 113. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order imposing the redemption fine.Penalty Imposition under Section 114(iii):Regarding the imposition of a penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal analyzed the appellant's contention that no penalty should be imposed due to the absence of misdeclaration. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant's argument, stating that as the goods were correctly declared, no penalty could be imposed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on all three issues raised, and ordered the decisions accordingly.