2013 (10) TMI 121 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Confiscation for License Violation under Customs Act, 1962

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods due to the absence of a Wireless Protocol Certificate (WPC) license for importation, as required by the ... Imported Goods – Restricted Category as per Notification No.53/2009 – Confiscation of Goods u/s 111(d) – Penalty u/s 112(a) - The Commissioner had rightly confiscated the goods as the importer could not produce WPC licence or any permission from the DGFT - the appellant fairly agreed that due to change in the circumstances, they could not get WPC licence - However, they have already paid customs duty of Rs.22 lakhs and now they wanted to re-export the goods which were already allowed by the Commissioner - However, they have contended that imposition of redemption fine was on the higher side and requested to reduce it after considering the amount already deposited as sufficient deposit for the purpose of hearing the appeal. CHA had failed to discharge the obligatory duty as set out in the sub-regulation (b) of Regulation 20 of CHALR - They have rendered themselves liable for penal action in terms of section 112 (a) and section 117 of Customs Act. No malafide had been reflected upon on the part of the appellant - However, it was fact that the licence was required for importation of the goods and these goods were restricted under import and export policy - Even if there was no malafide, the goods were liable for confiscation and imposition of penalty, if no licence was produced or non permission from the DGFT - Similarly, CHA can also not get exoneration for his acts - However, in view of the stand already taken in respect of mens rea, ends of justice shall be met if penalty on CHA was reduced. Issues:1. Requirement of WPC license for importation of goods.2. Confiscation of goods under section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962.3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on importer.4. Liability of Customs House Agent (CHA) for penalty.5. Adequacy of redemption fine and penalty amounts.6. Adjustment of deposited customs duty against fine and penalty.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to the requirement of a Wireless Protocol Certificate (WPC) license for the importation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, a company, imported goods without the necessary WPC license, leading to the confiscation of the goods under section 111(d) by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The appellant failed to produce the required license during examination, resulting in the imposition of penalties under sections 112(a) and 117 of the Customs Act.2. The Commissioner held that the goods were liable for confiscation due to the absence of a valid WPC license, as mandated by DGFT Notification No.53/2009-14. The appellant's request for storage under section 49 of the Customs Act was granted pending the production of the license. The Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs.15 lakhs and penalties on both the importer and the Customs House Agent (CHA) for non-compliance.3. The appellant, represented by their advocate, argued that they had already paid a significant amount towards customs duty and sought permission for re-export of the goods. The Tribunal acknowledged the payment but upheld the imposition of the redemption fine and penalties, considering the failure to procure the necessary license. The Tribunal reduced the penalty on the importer from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs, taking into account the circumstances and the restricted nature of the imported goods.4. Regarding the role of the CHA, the Commissioner found them negligent in not ensuring the submission of the required WPC license for clearance of the goods. The CHA's failure to exercise due diligence led to penalties under sections 112(a) and 117 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld the penalty but reduced it to Rs.50,000, considering the lack of malafide intent on the part of the CHA.5. The Tribunal directed the adjustment of the deposited customs duty amount against the remaining fine and penalty. It affirmed the Commissioner's order for re-export with modifications in the penalty amounts. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with licensing requirements for restricted goods and the consequences of non-compliance under the Customs Act, ultimately balancing the penalties imposed with the circumstances of the case.