2008 (1) TMI 662 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds toothbrush confiscation for misdeclaration

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of a consignment of toothbrushes misdeclared as branded products due to non-compliance with DEPB rate claim, ... Confiscation, fine and penalty - Misdeclaration - DEPB credit Issues:Confiscation of goods for misdeclaration as branded products, DEPB rate claim, appearance of brand name on packaging, Made in India requirement, bar coding absence, excess DEPB credit availed, redemption fine reduction, penalty imposition.Confiscation of Goods for Misdeclaration as Branded Products:The appellant appealed against the Commissioner of Customs' order confiscating a consignment of toothbrush misdeclared as branded products. The goods were claimed to have a DEPB rate of 16% with a cap value, but it was found that the brand name 'DENTO' was not on the immediate packaging, only on the outer carton. Additionally, the 'Made in India' requirement and bar coding were missing, violating Exim Policy and DGFT approval terms. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation due to the misdeclaration.DEPB Rate Claim and Reduction of Redemption Fine:The appellant attempted to avail excess DEPB credit of over Rs. 1.00 lakh. Despite upholding the confiscation, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1.00 lakh to Rs. 50,000 considering the attempted excess DEPB credit. The penalty imposed was deemed low, and no grounds for interference were found.Appearance of Brand Name on Packaging and Compliance Issues:The Tribunal noted that the brand name 'DENTO' was only on the outer carton, not the immediate packing, and the 'Made in India' requirement was not met. The absence of bar coding further contributed to the non-compliance with DGFT approval terms for the brand name. These factors supported the decision to uphold the confiscation of the goods.Reduction of Redemption Fine and Partial Allowance of Appeal:The appeal was partly allowed by reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal found the quantum of penalty to be low, leading to no grounds for interference. The decision highlighted the reduction in the redemption fine due to the attempted excess DEPB credit and maintained the penalty imposed.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addresses the issues of confiscation for misdeclaration, DEPB rate claim, compliance issues regarding brand name appearance and 'Made in India' requirement, reduction of redemption fine, and penalty imposition, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made.