2014 (8) TMI 127 - AT - Customs

High Court orders Tribunal review of time-barred appeal, denial of exemption leads to confiscation, fine, and penalty. Commissioner rejects re-export plea.

Nexus Transcore Industries Versus Commissioner of Customs Chennai

The High Court directed the Tribunal to review an appeal initially dismissed as time-barred. The appellant's request for an exemption for 'Electrical ... Denial of the benefit of Exemption No.21/2002 dt.1.3.2000 - Import of 'Electrical Steel Sheets in Coils-Seconds' - Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine - Misdeclaration of goods - Held that:- appellant had not refuted the finding of the Adjudicating authority. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that they were under bonafide belief, cannot be accepted. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the adjudicating authority - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.2. Denial of benefit of Exemption No.21/2002 for import of 'Electrical Steel Sheets in Coils-Seconds'.3. Confiscation of goods, fine, and penalty imposed.4. Misdeclaration of goods and confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.5. Justification of confiscation based on misdeclaration.6. Bonafide belief contention not accepted.Analysis:1. The appellant's appeal was initially dismissed as barred by limitation. However, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Tribunal to take up the appeal for disposal. This led to a review of the case.2. The Commissioner of Customs denied the benefit of Exemption No.21/2002 for the import of 'Electrical Steel Sheets in Coils-Seconds.' The goods were confiscated, and a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs along with a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 was imposed.3. Despite the appellant's request for re-export without payment of duty, fine, and penalty, the Commissioner did not grant permission initially. The appellant eventually paid the dues and was allowed to re-export the goods.4. The dispute arose from the misdeclaration of goods by the appellant. The goods declared as prime quality were found to be seconds upon examination, justifying confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.5. The Adjudicating Authority's findings supported the confiscation based on various factors such as pricing, lack of evidence of misshipment, and the importer's awareness of prevailing market prices. The appellant did not refute these findings.6. The appellant's contention of being under a bonafide belief was not accepted, as they failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claim. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the sequence of events leading to the decision, and the legal reasoning behind the Tribunal's final ruling on the matter.