Tribunal Upholds Decision on Confiscation & Redemption Fine for Duty-Free Inputs

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal seeking confiscation and recovery of redemption fine for diverted duty-free inputs. The case involved goods not physically seized or available for seizure, leading to the rejection of the appeal based on the distinction between bonds executed for different purposes under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment clarified that only seized goods are subject to confiscation, with redemption fine applicable in lieu of confiscation. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, emphasizing the specific requirements for enforcement of bonds in cases of diverted duty-free inputs.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against rejection of department's appeal regarding confiscation and recovery of redemption fine for diverted duty-free inputs.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the department's appeal. The case involved M/s. Millat Fibres, Surat, alleged to have diverted duty-free inputs. While appropriate Customs duty was confirmed with a penalty, 6000 kgs of imported PFY, illicitly cleared/diverted, were not confiscated by the adjudicating authority. The main ground of appeal was that the unit had executed a bond while obtaining warehousing license, contending that these bonds should have been enforced for confiscation and recovery of redemption fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that goods can only be confiscated if available for confiscation, citing the judgment in the case of Weston Components Ltd. v. C.C., New Delhi.

2. The Revenue's main contention was that the assessee, under bond while obtaining re-warehousing license and license to manufacture, had undertaken to observe all provisions of Customs Act, 1962, and Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court's judgment, arguing that goods can be confiscated even if not physically available. The key issue was whether goods can be confiscated if not seized. The judgment clarified that only seized goods are liable for confiscation, and redemption fine can be imposed in lieu of confiscation. Since the goods in question were neither seized nor available for seizure, confiscation and redemption fine were deemed inapplicable.

3. Regarding the enforcement of the bond, the Revenue claimed that the unit had executed a G-17 bond covering all liabilities against the 100% EOU. However, it was found that no bond was executed for the release of confiscated goods, and no redemption fine was imposed upon release. The purpose of the bond under Customs Act, 1962 differed for working as an EOU and for the provisional release of seized goods. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the department's appeal, emphasizing the distinction between the types of bonds executed.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal after considering the arguments presented and the legal provisions governing the confiscation and recovery of redemption fine in cases involving diverted duty-free inputs.

---