2018 (8) TMI 427 - AT - Customs

Tribunal cancels redemption fine for import violation, citing retrospective effect, impacting penalty imposition.

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA U.T. LTD Versus M/s U.T. LTD. KOLKATA, C.C. (PORT). KOLKATA

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA U.T. LTD Versus M/s U.T. LTD. KOLKATA, C.C. (PORT). KOLKATA - 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1124 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:- Application of restriction imposed by Notification No. 64(RE-08)/04/09 on imported consignment of S S Seamless Tube- Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act on importer and CHA- Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of Customs ActAnalysis:1. Application of restriction imposed by Notification No. 64(RE-08)/04/09:The case involved the import of S S Seamless Tubes by the appellant-importer during a period when a restriction was imposed by Notification No. 64(RE-08)/04/09. The Revenue contended that the importer contravened the provisions of the notification by importing the goods during the restricted period. However, the importer argued that the order for import was placed before the restriction was imposed. The Tribunal noted that subsequent to the restriction, a circular was issued lifting the restriction and allowing the import of the goods without a specific license. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the circular was clarificatory in nature and should have retrospective effect. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the redemption fine imposed on the imported goods, as it was contrary to Customs law and the DGFT circular.2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act:The Revenue appealed against the non-imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the importer and their Customs House Agent (CHA). The Tribunal observed that the Revenue's appeal was related to the penalty aspect, while the importer's appeal was against the confirmed penalty imposed on them under Section 125 of the Customs Act for confiscated goods. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the redemption fine on the imported goods also impacted the penalty aspect, as the order imposing the fine was overturned. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal as it did not survive after setting aside the Order-in-Original on merits.3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act:The imported goods were confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, and the Adjudicating Authority allowed the option to redeem the goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act on payment of a redemption fine. However, the Tribunal, after considering the circumstances and the retrospective effect of the circular lifting the import restriction, set aside the redemption fine imposed on the goods. This decision rendered the appeal filed by the Revenue against the penalty aspect moot, leading to its rejection by the Tribunal.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of import restriction, penalty imposition, and confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, ultimately setting aside the redemption fine and rejecting the Revenue's appeal.