2017 (3) TMI 910 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Confiscation of China Phones, Adjusts Penalties for Importers

Nittn Bansal, Proprietor, Dharmendra Bansal., Jasbir Singh., Hari 0m Couriers., Pradeep Kumar., Vimal Shukla., Saurabh Agarwal., Gold Manner Overseas. & Waho Wireless Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C., Lucknow

Nittn Bansal, Proprietor, Dharmendra Bansal., Jasbir Singh., Hari 0m Couriers., Pradeep Kumar., Vimal Shukla., Saurabh Agarwal., Gold Manner Overseas. & ... Issues:Rectification of mistake in Final Order, Confiscation of China origin mobile phones, Non-declaration of MRP, Violation of Customs Act and Foreign Trade Policy, Imposition of penalties.Rectification of Mistake in Final Order:The applicants filed misc. applications for rectification of mistake against Final Order dated 29.07.2015. The Final Order was received on 28.12.2015, and the applications were filed within the limitation of six months. The Tribunal observed no error of law or fact on the record, except for the penalties imposed on two importers. The penalties on these importers were set aside as their relation to the seized goods was not established.Confiscation of China Origin Mobile Phones:The case involved the confiscation of 77 cartons of China origin mobile phones for not having the MRP/RSP printed as required by the Central Excise Act and Packaged Commodity Rules. The Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 96,40,150 under Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove that the goods were smuggled, and the confiscation was primarily due to the absence of MRP.Non-declaration of MRP and Violation of Customs Act and Foreign Trade Policy:The Tribunal noted that the mobile phones did not have the MRP printed, violating the provisions of the Customs Act and Foreign Trade Policy. The failure to declare MRP rendered the goods liable to confiscation, as per the ruling in a Delhi High Court case. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but modified the penalties imposed on various appellants, finding some penalties to be on the higher side.Imposition of Penalties:Penalties were imposed on multiple individuals and entities involved in the case. The Tribunal modified the penalties, reducing or setting aside penalties for some appellants based on the circumstances of the case. Penalties were adjusted for factors such as the relationship of the appellants to the seized goods and the reasonableness of the fines imposed. The Tribunal found no need for interference in the Final Order except for the penalties on the two importers, which were set aside.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the misc. applications, upholding the confiscation of the goods due to non-declaration of MRP, modifying penalties for various appellants, and setting aside penalties for importers with no established relation to the seized goods.