2012 (5) TMI 433 - AT - Customs

Appellant penalized for violating import-export policy - penalties reduced, newsprint confiscation upheld

The Tribunal found the appellant, acting as a newspaper handling agent, violated import export policy by selling newsprint to unauthorized parties and not ... Confiscation of the newsprint seized - Redemption fine - As per the public notice dated 31-9-1993 issued by Ministry of Commerce, Govt, of India, the newsprint can be imported directly by those who hold a certificate of entitlement to import newsprint issued by Registrar of Newspaper, Govt, of India or through Newspaper handling agency authorized by them - redemption fine and penalties on appellants as there is a violation of conditions of import policy, keeping in view the value of the seized goods which were subsequently confiscated, the redemption fine is reduced Issues:Violation of import export policy regarding newsprint import, Confiscation of newsprint, Redemption fine and penalties imposition, Role of newspaper handling agent, Quantity discrepancy in newsprint delivery to actual users, Reduction of redemption fine and penalties.Violation of Import Export Policy Regarding Newsprint Import:The Revenue contended that the appellant imported newsprint in violation of the import export policy as they were not the actual users, leading to confiscation. The appellant argued that they were appointed as a newspaper handling agent by the Registrar of Newspapers for India and facilitated imports for actual users, complying with guidelines. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued guidelines appointing the appellant as a newsprint handling agent, limiting their role to facilitation. The Tribunal found that the appellant acted beyond their facilitator role, selling newsprint to unauthorized parties, leading to a violation of the import export policy.Confiscation of Newsprint:The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of newsprint seized from the appellant's premises, along with a redemption fine and penalties. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the seized newsprint, considering only the quantity actually seized as liable for confiscation. The order of confiscation was deemed unsustainable for the quantity not seized. The penalties imposed were reduced for certain individuals and entities involved in the import process.Role of Newspaper Handling Agent:The appellant, as a newspaper handling agent, was authorized to facilitate newsprint imports for actual users. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant exceeded their role by selling newsprint to unauthorized parties and not delivering the full quantity to the actual users as per the import policy guidelines. This led to a violation of the import export policy and subsequent penalties.Quantity Discrepancy in Newsprint Delivery to Actual Users:There was a discrepancy in the quantity of newsprint delivered to actual users, with certain entities receiving more than the imported quantity. The Tribunal noted this discrepancy and set aside penalties imposed on an entity that received the full quantity imported on their behalf. The penalties were deemed unsustainable in this specific case.Reduction of Redemption Fine and Penalties Imposition:Due to the violation of import policy conditions, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the appellants. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 4.00 Lakhs, and penalties on specific individuals and entities were reduced to Rs. 50,000 each. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals based on the reduced redemption fine and penalties.In summary, the judgment addressed the violation of import export policy in newsprint import, upheld confiscation of seized newsprint, analyzed the role of the newspaper handling agent, noted quantity discrepancies in newsprint delivery, and reduced redemption fine and penalties for the appellants.