2018 (1) TMI 1737 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Decision: No Grounds for Confiscation of Seized Logs Under Customs Act; Revenue's Appeal Dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the non-imposition of a redemption fine for 126 seized logs. It upheld the adjudicating authority's ... Confiscation of 126 Nos. of logs - non-imposition or redemption fine - logs in the warehouse were attempted to be tampered - HELD THAT:- We noticed that the issue is regarding confiscation of 126 Nos. of logs which were in the warehouse and were cut into two pieces. We find that the adjudicating authority in Para No. 22.2 has clearly recorded that the duty liability on 126 Nos. of logs which were imported, were discharged based on the volume. As long as the customs duty is paid on the entire consignment, which has been imported and there is no dispute as to valuation of the consignment, provisions of Section 111(j) of Customs Act, 1962, which has been invoked in this case, may not be applicable, as the said section gets invoked on removal of dutiable or prohibited goods from the customs area without the permission of proper officer. The adjudicating authority has specifically recorded that the logs were cut into two pieces for easy transportation and that also on payment of applicable customs duty. Since the provision of Section 111(j) of Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable, adjudicating authority was correct in not confiscating the said logs. We do not find any reason to interfere in such a reasoned order. Accordingly Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Issues Involved:Appeal against non-imposition of redemption fine by adjudicating authority for seized logs.Analysis:1. Issue of Non-Imposition of Redemption Fine:The Revenue filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 7/2007, dated 24-12-2007, concerning the non-imposition of a redemption fine for 126 logs seized by Revenue authorities. The Revenue contended that the logs, which were imported and stored in a warehouse, were removed after being cut into two pieces, which they deemed unacceptable. The Revenue argued that the attempted tampering with the logs indicated their liability for confiscation. However, upon review, it was observed that the duty liability on the imported logs had been discharged based on volume, and there was no dispute regarding valuation. The adjudicating authority had noted that the logs were cut into two pieces for easier transportation, with the applicable customs duty paid. As per Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, confiscation applies upon removal of dutiable goods without proper permission, which was not the case here. Therefore, the adjudicating authority's decision not to confiscate the logs was deemed appropriate.2. Adjudication and Dismissal of Appeal:After hearing the arguments of the Revenue and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the issue revolved around the confiscation of the 126 logs that had been cut into two pieces while in the warehouse. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had correctly discharged the duty liability on the logs based on the entire consignment's importation. Since the provisions of Section 111(j) of the Customs Act were not applicable due to the proper payment of customs duty and absence of removal without permission, the adjudicating authority's decision to not confiscate the logs was upheld. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that there was no valid reason to interfere with the reasoned order.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision regarding the non-imposition of a redemption fine for the seized logs, emphasizing that the duty liability had been discharged appropriately, and the provisions of the Customs Act did not warrant confiscation in this scenario.