2010 (7) TMI 955 - AT - Customs

Tribunal's Decision on Customs Act Notification Dispute: High Court Remands for Reconsideration

GOVIND PUROHIT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

The Tribunal initially set aside the Order-in-Original as the goods were not notified under Sec. 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the Revenue's ... - Issues:1. Tribunal setting aside Order-in-Original due to goods not being notified under Sec.123 of Customs Act, 1962.2. Revenue's misc. application for rectification of mistake dismissed by Tribunal.3. High Court remanding the matter to Tribunal for fresh consideration.4. Whether Electronic Calculators were notified goods under Notification No. 204-Cus.5. Imposition of duty liability, fine, and penalty on the appellant for confiscated goods.Analysis:1. The appeal was initially allowed by the Tribunal based on the ground that the goods alleged to be smuggled were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that the burden lies on the Department to prove smuggling, which was not done, leading to the Order-in-Original being set aside.2. Despite the Revenue's misc. application for rectification of mistake, seeking to establish that Calculators were notified goods, the Tribunal dismissed the application. The High Court later found that the Tribunal had erred in not considering the facts and directed a fresh consideration based on the notification produced by the Revenue.3. The High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh review, emphasizing the need to consider the case of the Revenue in light of the notification. The Tribunal was instructed to reevaluate the case in accordance with the law.4. Upon reevaluation, the Tribunal found that the Electronic Calculators in question were indeed notified goods under Notification No. 204-Cus. The Tribunal determined that the Calculators were liable for confiscation due to being imported in violation of the law. The appellant was held responsible for duty liability and fine accordingly.5. The Tribunal concluded that the confiscated goods were liable for penalty and imposed a redemption fine on the appellants. The fine and penalty were calculated based on the value of the goods, with the appellant given the option to redeem the goods on payment of the specified fine. The appeal was partially allowed with modifications to duty liability, fine, and penalty.This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, detailing the Tribunal's decisions, the Revenue's applications, the High Court's directions, and the final determination regarding the confiscated goods and associated penalties.