2015 (2) TMI 692 - AT - Customs

Importer's Redemption Fine & Penalty Set Aside for Prompt Error Rectification

The court upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer, as there was no willful ... Levy of anti dumping duty - Misdeclaration of goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- Appellant has discharged the anti-dumping duty liability in terms of the aforesaid notification, when it was pointed out along with interest. I have also perused the bill of entry concerning the impugned transaction. In the said bill of entry, the importer had declared country of origin as Turkey and the port of export as Iran. Thus, there is no misdeclaration on the part of the respondent importer with respect to the impugned transaction. It is true that the respondent did not discharge the anti-dumping duty liability. The customs authorities also validated the transaction without noticing the mistake committed by the importer and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent alone was negligent and not the department. Further, no goods have been seized or confiscated. The law does not provide for imposition of fine on a consignment which has already been cleared and not available for confiscation and therefore, imposition of redemption fine by the original authority on the importer is clearly unsustainable in law and therefore, the appellate authority was right in dropping the demand of fine. As regards the imposition of penalty, the appellate authority has rightly observed that there was no malafide on the part of the importer and it was only an inadvertent error. Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act applies only when there is a misdeclaration of any material particulars. In the present case, the appellant has not misdeclared any material particulars and therefore, the provisions of Section 111 (m) are not attracted in the fact of the case. Consequently, the liability to confiscation also does not arise and therefore, imposition of penalty on the appellant is also not warranted. Therefore, the lower appellate authority is absolutely correct in setting aside the imposition of fine and penalty. - No reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate authority - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Stay petition regarding redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer.3. Imposition of fine and penalty justified based on self-assessment error.4. Whether the imposition of fine and penalty on the importer is warranted.5. Applicability of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act in the case.Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay:The delay of seven days in filing the appeal was due to postal delay. The reason provided was considered satisfactory, and the delay was condoned as the Revenue did not benefit from the delay intentionally.2. Stay Petition:The lower appellate authority set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer, stating no willful misdeclaration by the appellant. The importer's responsibility for self-assessment was emphasized, and the facility of self-assessment was extended to them. The Revenue argued that the importer's error in self-assessment justified the fine and penalty. However, the importer rectified the error upon notification and paid the anti-dumping duty along with interest for past transactions. The appellate authority found no malafide intent in the importer's actions and ruled against the imposition of fine and penalty.3. Imposition of Fine and Penalty:The importer's lack of awareness of the anti-dumping duty notification was highlighted, and their prompt action to rectify the non-payment was noted. The importer voluntarily disclosed previous transactions without duty payment and cleared the liability for both past and present consignments. The absence of malafide intent in the importer's actions led to the dismissal of the fine and penalty imposition.4. Justification for Fine and Penalty:The judge observed that the importer had rectified the anti-dumping duty liability upon notification. The bill of entry showed no misdeclaration regarding the transaction details. The customs authorities overlooked the error during validation, indicating negligence on their part as well. As no goods were seized or confiscated, imposing a fine on a cleared consignment was deemed legally unsustainable. The imposition of penalty under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act requires misdeclaration of material particulars, which was absent in this case. Therefore, the lower appellate authority's decision to drop the fine and penalty was upheld.5. Application of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act:Section 111(m) applies when there is a misdeclaration of material particulars. Since the appellant did not misdeclare any material particulars, the provision of Section 111(m) was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the liability to confiscation did not arise, and the imposition of penalty was considered unwarranted. The judge upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to set aside the fine and penalty based on the lack of misdeclaration by the importer.In conclusion, the judge found no reason to interfere with the lower appellate authority's order, upholding the decision to reject the appeal filed by the Revenue and disposing of the stay petition. The importer was entitled to consequential relief as per the law.