2020 (3) TMI 767 - AT - Customs

Tribunal reduces fines for excess Zinc Dross import, citing lack of mala fide intent

M/s. Rubamin Ltd Versus C.C., Mundra

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad partly allowed the appeal regarding the confiscation of excess imported Zinc Dross Scrub. The Tribunal reduced the ... Mis-declaration of imported goods - Zinc Dross Scrub - goods were found in excess quantity, that is against the declared quantity 19.33 Metric tones, physically it was found as 22.32 Metric tones - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute on the facts on the present case that the imports of the appellant were found in excess, as per the quantity mentioned in import documents. There is nothing on record to establish that the appellant has mala fide to import excess quantity. However, there is no dispute that the excess quantity were imported therefore, the same is liable for confiscation but found without any mala fide intention. The duty attributed to the excess quantity goods is ₹ 1,24,350. As against the duty liability of excess found goods, the redemption fine and penalty was very exaggerated which needs to be reduced. The redemption fine of ₹ 1 Lakh is reduced to ₹ 10,000 and penalty is reduced to ₹ 3,000 - Appeal allowed in part. Issues:1. Confiscation of excess imported goods.2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.3. Dispute over the quantity of goods declared in import documents.4. Mala fide intention in importing excess goods.Analysis:Confiscation of Excess Imported Goods:The appellant imported Zinc Dross Scrub, declaring 19.33 Metric tones, but physically, 22.32 Metric tones were found. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the excess goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and a penalty of Rs. 15,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the present appeal.Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:The appellant argued that they were unaware of the excess quantity shipped by the Foreign Supplier, and there was no mis-declaration with a mala fide intention. They paid the duty for the excess goods and cited judgments where confiscation did not occur in similar discrepancies. The revenue, however, supported the confiscation based on the substantial excess found compared to the declared quantity.Dispute Over Quantity Declared in Import Documents:The Tribunal found no evidence of mala fide intention by the appellant to import excess quantity. While acknowledging the excess import, the Tribunal noted the lack of mala fide intent. The duty attributed to the excess quantity was determined at Rs. 1,24,350, leading to a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty imposed.Mala Fide Intention in Importing Excess Goods:The Tribunal concluded that the excess quantity was liable for confiscation due to being imported without mala fide intention. The redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 10,000, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 3,000, considering the overall facts of the case. The appeal was partly allowed with the revised fines and penalties.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of confiscation of excess goods, imposition of fines and penalties, dispute over declared quantities, and the presence of mala fide intention in importing excess goods, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal decision by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad.