2016 (7) TMI 418 - CGOVT - Customs

Government upholds Order-in-Appeal on duty, fine, and penalties for non-declared imported goods.

The Government upheld the Order-in-Appeal, affirming the decisions on disallowance of free baggage allowance, confiscation of goods and packaging ... Demand of duty and interest - Import of goods - passing through green channel without declaration - bags were found to contain 80 pieces of jeans of various sizes, plain artificial jewellery made of brass, plated with silver of 22KT weighing 5000gms and studded artificial jewellery of brass studded with glass stones, plated with silver of 22KT weighing 15000 grams. - Held that:- He carried the said goods with an intention to evade payment of the Customs duty leviable on these goods. Therefore duty was rightly demanded under Section 28 of the Act ibid and the demand confirmed after following due process of law. When duty was not paid at the time of import, the interest is chargeable on the duty amount where duty has not been paid on the goods in terms of Section 28 AA (now 28AB) of the Act, ibid. Hence interest is also rightly held to be payable by the impugned order on the duty demanded. Seizure and confiscation of goods does not absolve such goods from levy of duty and interest in turn is charged on such duty not paid. - Decided against the applicant. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of free baggage allowance.2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine.3. Confiscation of packaging material.4. Imposition of penalty.5. Applicability of Section 28AB for charging interest.Detailed Analysis:Disallowance of Free Baggage Allowance:The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the free baggage allowance of Rs. 35,000/- on the grounds of non-bonafide nature of the goods and contravention of various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. This decision was based on the passenger's failure to declare the goods properly, which included 80 pieces of jeans and artificial jewelry, valued at Rs. 5,27,185/-. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and were deemed liable for confiscation.Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine:The seized goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 (d), (i), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the applicant was given the option to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 125, along with appropriate duty and interest under Sections 28 and 28AB. The Commissioner (Appeals) later reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 55,000/-.Confiscation of Packaging Material:The packaging material used for concealing the seized goods was also confiscated under Section 118 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant was given the option to redeem the packaging material on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 125.Imposition of Penalty:A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the applicant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, for various acts of omission and commission. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. 35,000/-.Applicability of Section 28AB for Charging Interest:The primary issue raised in the revision application was the applicability of Section 28AB for charging interest. The applicant contended that interest under Section 28AB was not leviable as Section 28 was not applicable in this case. The argument was based on the fact that no order for clearance of goods was passed under Section 47 for home consumption, as Sections 46 and 47 are not applicable to baggage cases. The applicant cited the CESTAT decision in Essar Oil Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Jamnagar, to support this claim.The Government, however, observed that Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, mandates that duty is chargeable on all imported goods, including those imported as baggage. Since the applicant failed to declare the goods and did not pay the duty at the time of import, the duty was rightly demanded under Section 28. Consequently, interest was also chargeable under Section 28AB for the delayed payment of duty.The Government found no merit in the applicant's argument that no interest is leviable on goods placed under seizure. Seizure and confiscation do not absolve the goods from the levy of duty and interest. The cited CESTAT decision was deemed not applicable to the present case, as it related to an order of assessment under Section 47, which is not applicable to baggage.Conclusion:The Government upheld the Order-in-Appeal, finding no infirmity in it, and rejected the revision application as being devoid of merits. The decisions regarding disallowance of free baggage allowance, confiscation of goods and packaging material, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, and applicability of Section 28AB for charging interest were all affirmed.