2016 (6) TMI 225 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal sets aside penalty for misdeclared goods, citing precedents

The Tribunal favored the appellants by setting aside the orders reducing redemption fine and penalty imposed for goods wrongly declared as household ... Import of button cells and watch parts through post parcel - Mis-declaration of goods - Confiscation of seized goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- it is an admitted facts that the goods were imported through EMS Speed Post, which were not liable to seizure/ confiscation in terms of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the provisions of Section 111 do not specifically deal with seizure of goods imported through post parcel, therefore, imposition of redemption fine and penalty are not in conformity with the statutory provisions followed by Sandhya Jewelers vs Comm. of Customs (Ahmadabad) [2013 (8) TMI 779 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. - Decided in favour of appellant Issues:- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on imported goods declared incorrectly as household articles.- Applicability of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 to goods imported through EMS Speed Post.- Comparison of decisions in Sandhya Jewelers case and Kuresh Laila case with Arun Kumar case.Analysis:1. The appellants appealed against orders reducing redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in 2014. The goods imported were wrongly declared as household articles but contained button cells and watch parts. Show Cause Proceedings led to confiscation of goods with an option for redemption and imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Act, which were reduced in the impugned orders.2. The main contention was whether goods imported via post parcel could be seized under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, leading to redemption fine and penalties. The appellant argued against the imposition, citing precedents like Sandhya Jewelers case and Kuresh Laila case where confiscation was set aside for goods imported through post parcel.3. The Respondent, however, supported the impugned orders and referred to the Arun Kumar case to justify the redemption fine and penalties. The Tribunal noted that Section 111 did not specifically address goods imported through post parcels, leading to the view that fines and penalties were not in line with statutory provisions.4. The Tribunal found that the decisions in Sandhya Jewelers and Kuresh Laila cases were more relevant as they set aside confiscation for goods imported through post parcels, contrary to the Arun Kumar case. The Tribunal considered the Arun Kumar decision as per incurium due to not referencing the Division Bench order in Sandhya Jewelers case.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal favored the appellants, following the precedent set in the Sandhya Jewelers case, by setting aside the impugned orders. The judgment highlighted the lack of specific provisions in Section 111 for goods imported through post parcels, leading to the decision in favor of the appellants.