2016 (2) TMI 9 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Vessel Confiscation with Reduced Fine - Customs Act 1962

The Great Offshore Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of a vessel with a redemption fine and penalty imposed on the Appellant under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, ... Department issued show cause notice (the present proceedings) proposing to confiscate the tug under Section 111(f) and impose penalty, for not filing IGM for the intervening period 16.07.2001 to 29.11.2002. - Held that:- the Department was aware of the irregularities committed by the Appellant at the time of first proceedings, wherein the Appellants were allowed to file Bill of Entry. It also appears that penalty was imposed at that time. Therefore, not amending the IGM amounts to only a technical offence, which calls for token penalty and token fine only, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, while upholding the impugned Order-in-Original, we reduce the redemption fine to ₹ 1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) and penalty to ₹ 50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousands only). - Decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Confiscation of vessel with redemption fine and penalty.2. Interpretation of Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Requirement of filing IGM and Bill of Entry for vessels brought from abroad.Confiscation of Vessel with Redemption Fine and Penalty:The case involved the confiscation of a vessel with a redemption fine and penalty imposed on the Appellant. The Appellants argued that the vessel was not liable for confiscation under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it was exempt from Customs Duty at the time of import. The Appellant also highlighted that the IGM was filed with post facto permission from the Customs authorities. The Tribunal observed that while the Appellants failed to amend the IGM and pay the applicable duty at the time of purchase, the Department was aware of the situation during earlier proceedings. Considering the technical nature of the offense, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to &8377; 1 lakh and the penalty to &8377; 50,000, upholding the Order-in-Original with modifications.Interpretation of Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962:The Appellants contended that the provisions of Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962, were not applicable to the case as the tug was neither dutiable nor prohibited goods. They argued that the vessel was exempt from Customs Duty at the time of import and was not prohibited under relevant Acts or Policies. The Tribunal considered the submissions but focused on the failure of the Appellants to amend the IGM and pay the duty upon purchase. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department had previously allowed the Appellants to file a Bill of Entry and imposed a penalty. The Tribunal concluded that the failure to amend the IGM constituted a technical offense warranting a reduced redemption fine and penalty.Requirement of Filing IGM and Bill of Entry for Vessels Brought from Abroad:The Appellants referenced relevant circulars and legal provisions to support their argument that the requirement for filing IGM and Bill of Entry for vessels brought from abroad was not in place before a certain date. They highlighted that the IGM was filed with retrospective permission from the Customs authorities. The Tribunal acknowledged the Appellants' contentions but stressed the importance of timely compliance with filing requirements. Despite the retrospective filing, the Tribunal noted the failure to amend the IGM at the time of purchase, leading to the initiation of confiscation proceedings. The Tribunal, while considering the circumstances, reduced the redemption fine and penalty due to the technical nature of the offense.In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of confiscation, interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and compliance with filing requirements for vessels brought from abroad. The judgment upheld the confiscation but modified the redemption fine and penalty, considering the Department's awareness of the situation during earlier proceedings and the technical nature of the offense committed by the Appellants.