Tribunal Upholds Confiscation, Reduces Fine

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(f) but set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appellant's argument that the ship was bought "as is where is" was rejected, as specific spare parts listed in the Memorandum of Agreement should have been included in the Import General Manifest. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 20,000 due to the appellant's lack of involvement in the mis-declaration by the steamer agent. The appeal was disposed of with the reduced redemption fine on 27-4-07.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding confiscation of goods u/s 111(f) and imposition of penalty on appellant.

Summary:

Issue 1: Confiscation of goods under Section 111(f)
The appellant imported a ship for ship breaking under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) listing specific parts. The steamer agent failed to list these items in the Import General Manifest (IGM). The original authority confiscated goods u/s 111(d) and 111(f), allowing redemption and imposing penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld confiscation u/s 111(f) but set aside the penalty on the appellant. The appellant argued that as the ship was bought "as is where is," there was no need to separately list all items. The Tribunal noted that the MOA listed specific spare parts not considered part of the vessel, which should have been listed in the IGM. While upholding confiscation due to the steamer agent's failure, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 20,000, considering the appellant's lack of involvement in the mis-declaration by the steamer agent.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with the reduction of the redemption fine pronounced on 27-4-07.

---