2015 (9) TMI 1473 - AT - Customs

Customs Act Penalty Reduced for Innocent Importer Due to Proactive Measures

The Tribunal found that the imposition of penalty under the Customs Act was unwarranted in a case involving the mis-declaration of imported goods. Despite ... Confiscation of consignments under Section 11(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 - option to pay redemption fine under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - imposition of penalty Section 112 ibid - classification of export consignment - pet bottle scrap waste falling under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 - Hazardous Waste like plastic scrap containing bottles, wrappers, plastic etc - permission of Ministry of Environment and Forests was required to import the waste as per Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary) Rules, 2008. Held that: - on examination, the goods were found different from the description of goods declared in the Bill of Entry. Thus, there is a mis-declaration of goods and confiscation U/S 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified. Regarding the quantum of redemption fine and penalty it was found that that the appellant purchased the goods on high seas sale basis from M/s Jay Disha Impex Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of contract entered into between them. It is noted that the appellant is a user of pet bottles scrap and had been importing such goods regularly. There is no case of mis-declaration regarding import of the said goods. Further, there is no material available on record that the appellant had any knowledge of mis-declaration of goods. Also, appellant themselves noticed the discrepancy regarding declaration of goods on the Bill of Lading and requested for first check vide letter dated 22.02.2013 - imposition of penalty not warranted - redemption fine reduced to ₹ 25,000/-. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, Confiscation under Customs Act, Imposition of penaltyMis-declaration of goods:The case involved the import of pet bottle scrap waste declared in the Bill of Entry, which was found to contain hazardous waste upon examination. The Customs Department initiated proceedings due to the mis-declaration, leading to the confiscation of the goods under Section 11(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Order-in-Original dated 16.05.2013 confirmed the confiscation and imposed a redemption fine and penalty. The appellant contended that there was no mens rea involved in the mis-declaration.Confiscation under Customs Act:Upon review, it was established that the goods imported were different from the declared description, justifying the confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, who regularly imported pet bottle scrap, purchased the goods on high seas sale basis and had no prior knowledge of the mis-declaration. The appellant had even requested a first check upon noticing the discrepancy in the goods declaration. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal found that the imposition of penalty was unwarranted.Imposition of penalty:After analyzing the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the imposition of the penalty was not justified. The redemption fine was reduced to &8377; 25,000, and the penalty was set aside. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, considering the appellant's lack of involvement in the mis-declaration and their proactive steps upon noticing the discrepancy in the goods declaration.