2018 (3) TMI 1497 - AT - Customs

Customs Act: Fine and Penalty Adjusted in Confiscation Case.

The case involved the confiscation of goods and imposition of a Redemption Fine and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The ... Redemption of goods - contention of the Revenue is that since the goods are already sold through E-auction valued at ₹ 23,72,999/- to M/s. Daksh International, Mumbai, it does not appear to be feasible for the department to return the goods to the party, if he agrees to pay the Redemption Fine - Held that: - the seized goods are sold in auction and the Department would return the sale proceeds of goods in Indian currency - imposition of Redemption Fine is justified which would be adjusted against the sale proceeds. Penalty - Held that: - The appellant referred the name of one Sri S.K. Pappu of Khidirpur area, who engaged him for carrying of these goods. On investigation, the Customs officers did not find the whereabouts of S.K. Pappu. Hence, the contention of the Respondent that he had no knowledge, cannot be accepted - the Respondent had not disclosed the proper facts to the investigating officers - penalty justified. The quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced. Appeal allowed in part. Issues:1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.2. Feasibility of returning goods after e-auction.3. Appropriation of sale proceeds towards Redemption Fine and penalty.4. Duty payable under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.5. Justification of penalty imposition based on lack of knowledge.6. Application of Section 125 for payment in lieu of confiscation.7. Adjustment of Redemption Fine against sale proceeds.8. Reduction of Redemption Fine and penalty amount.Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty:The case involved the confiscation of goods and imposition of a Redemption Fine and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent was found carrying foreign-origin SD cards without proper documentation, leading to the confiscation and penalties. The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods and imposed a Redemption Fine of Rs. 7,00,000 and a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000. Both the Revenue and the Respondent filed appeals and cross objections respectively.Feasibility of Returning Goods After E-Auction:The Revenue argued that since the goods were already sold through e-auction, it was not feasible to return them to the party even if they agreed to pay the Redemption Fine. The absence of mentioning the appropriation of sale proceeds towards the Redemption Fine and penalty in the adjudication order was also highlighted.Appropriation of Sale Proceeds and Duty Payable:The issue of appropriating sale proceeds towards the Redemption Fine and penalty, as well as mentioning the duty payable under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, was raised. The Respondent contended that the goods were already sold, and they should receive the sale proceeds without the imposition of the Redemption Fine.Justification of Penalty Imposition Based on Lack of Knowledge:The Respondent claimed lack of knowledge regarding the prohibition of the seized goods and argued against the imposition of personal penalty. However, it was found that the Respondent failed to disclose proper facts to the investigating officers, leading to the justification of the penalty imposition.Application of Section 125 for Payment in Lieu of Confiscation:Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was applied, allowing the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The Tribunal referred to previous cases where the importer was entitled to the return of sale proceeds with deductions for Redemption Fine and penalty. The Redemption Fine was deemed justifiable and would be adjusted against the sale proceeds.Adjustment of Redemption Fine Against Sale Proceeds:The Tribunal justified the imposition of the Redemption Fine, which would be adjusted against the sale proceeds of the confiscated goods. The reduction of the Redemption Fine to Rs. 4,00,000 and the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000 was decided based on the excessive nature of the original amounts imposed.In conclusion, the impugned order was modified to reduce the Redemption Fine and penalty amounts, resolving the appeals and cross objections accordingly.