2004 (9) TMI 423 - AT - Customs

Tribunal affirms Customs decision on goods confiscation, duty, penalty under Customs Act

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA Versus MS INTERNATIONAL LTD.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on the confiscation of goods, demand of Customs Duty and interest, and penalty under Section 114A of the ... Redemption fine - Penalty Issues:- Confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962- Demand of Customs Duty and interest- Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962- Imposition of redemption fine- Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962:The Commissioner of Customs held the imported goods against an Advance Licence liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The order confirmed the demand of Customs Duty along with interest accrued, as per the relevant notifications. The Tribunal noted that the goods were never seized by Customs authorities and were ordered to be confiscated by the adjudication authority. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for the imposition of a redemption fine. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the adjudication authority regarding the confiscation of goods.Demand of Customs Duty and Interest:The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand of Customs Duty along with interest accrued at a specified rate. The Tribunal observed that the demand was made in accordance with the applicable notifications and procedures. The Tribunal did not find any irregularity in the calculation or imposition of Customs Duty and interest. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner in this regard.Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962:The Commissioner imposed a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act on the concerned parties. The Tribunal noted that no penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was imposed on one of the individuals. However, the Tribunal clarified that as per the provisions of Section 114A, if a penalty is imposed under this section, no penalty can be imposed under Section 112. The Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 114A was appropriately imposed, and therefore, no additional penalty under Section 112 was necessary. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty under Section 114A.Imposition of Redemption Fine:The Revenue contended that no redemption fine was imposed despite the confiscation of goods. The Tribunal explained that since the goods were never seized by Customs authorities and were directly ordered to be confiscated, there was no requirement for a redemption fine. The Tribunal dismissed the contention of the Revenue regarding the imposition of a redemption fine.Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:The Revenue raised concerns about the absence of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on one of the individuals involved. The Tribunal clarified that since a penalty was imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, no additional penalty under Section 112 was necessary. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal regarding the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 and dismissed the appeals.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Customs regarding the confiscation of goods, the demand of Customs Duty and interest, and the imposition of a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal clarified the legal provisions regarding redemption fines and penalties under different sections of the Customs Act, dismissing the appeals based on the lack of merit in the contentions raised by the Revenue.