Tribunal confirms seizure of Calcium Borate import, penalties reduced for diversion without duty payment

The Tribunal affirmed the confiscation of 2356.595 metric tonnes of Crude Calcium Borate imported without proper clearance and payment of Customs duty. Penalties under Section 112(a) were imposed on the importer and individuals for diverting goods without duty payment. The fines and penalties were reduced for the importer and individuals, with penalties on officers set aside due to lack of mala fides. The decision on penalties under Section 112(a) was overturned, and the goods were confiscated, with reduced fines and penalties for the involved parties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalties under Section 112(a).
2. Liability of importer and individuals for diversion of goods without payment of Customs duty.
3. Reduction of fine and penalties imposed on importer and individuals.
4. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) on officers involved.
5. Decision on penalties imposed on officers under Section 112(a).

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with the confiscation of 2356.595 metric tonnes of Crude Calcium Borate imported by a company without proper clearance and payment of Customs duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs had confiscated the goods and imposed penalties under Section 112(a) on the importer and individuals involved.

2. The Department's case was based on the importer diverting the goods to their factory premises without following the necessary procedures for home consumption, rendering the goods liable to confiscation. Despite notices, the importer did not appear. The Tribunal agreed with the Department that the goods were liable to confiscation as Customs duty was not paid before diverting the goods, regardless of the reason for diversion.

3. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, reduced the fine and penalties imposed on the importer and individuals. The fine was reduced to Rs. 20 lakhs, and penalties were reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs for the importer and Rs. 1 lakh for an individual. Since the duty demand was paid, interest was not deemed payable.

4. Regarding penalties imposed on officers under Section 112(a), the Tribunal observed that penalties were not imposable under that section and could have been imposed under a different section. The decision to store bonded goods in non-bonded premises was viewed leniently, considering the situation, and the penalties were set aside due to lack of mala fides.

5. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals accordingly, affirming the confiscation of goods and reduced fines and penalties for the importer and individuals, while setting aside penalties imposed on the officers involved under Section 112(a).

---