Tribunal upholds machinery confiscation for non-declaration, affirms Customs Act penalties. No grounds for interference found.

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of imported machinery due to non-declaration in the bill of entry, despite the appellant's claim of benefits under Notification No. 52/2003 for EOU. The imposition of redemption fine and penalties under Sections 111(1) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 was affirmed, with the Tribunal finding no grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' decision. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld, with the judgment pronounced on 02/05/2018.

---

---

Issues:
- Non-declaration of imported machinery in the bill of entry
- Confiscation of machinery under Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty
- Applicability of Notification No. 52/2003

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - III. The appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of second-hand machines claiming benefits under Notification No. 52/2003 for EOU. However, during examination, an old and used 3D solder paste inspection machine was found in excess, not covered in the procurement certificate. The adjudicating authority confiscated the machine under Section 111(1) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The first appellate authority extended the benefit of the notification but upheld the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties.

The appellant argued that they had procured a certificate but faced issues due to its address and sought amendment in the bill of entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty and confiscation were contested, claiming incorrect application of Sections 111(d) and (m). The AR supported the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal noted the non-declaration of the imported machinery in the bill of entry, even if meant for an EOU, and upheld the confiscation and penalties under Sections 111(1) and (m). The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decision, considering the value of the undeclared machine, upholding the redemption fine and consequent penalty on the appellant.

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was correct and did not warrant interference, ultimately rejecting the appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 02/05/2018.

---