2023 (4) TMI 221 - AT - Customs

High Court rules for respondent, overturning Larger Bench decision. No appeal to Supreme Court. Tribunal upholds High Court ruling.

Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), Import, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Versus M/s Oriental Trimex Limited

The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, setting aside the decision of the Larger Bench. The High Court found no justification for adjusting the ... Confiscation of goods - redemption fine - penalty - appeal disposed off as not maintainable since it was filed beyond the period of 60 days period prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act without an application seeking condonation of the delay - HELD THAT:- The respondent in the decision of High Court in ORIENTAL TRIMEX LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT [2022 (10) TMI 751 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in favour of the assessee and setting aside the decision of the Larger Bench - it was held by Delhi High Court that The respondent/revenue, having sold the goods, which it could not have done, since the appeal was pending at the relevant time, we find that there is no good reason for adjustment of redemption fine. Both sides agree that the question of law in this matter was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the High Court of Delhi - Learned authorised representative for the Revenue has also placed on record a letter from the Deputy Commissioner (Legal), Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD, Tughlakabad confirming that the decision of the High Court has been accepted by the department. In other words, there is no further appeal pending before the Supreme Court and the matter has attained finality. Revenue’s appeal cannot be allowed as the question of law has been decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court and the decision has also attained finality - appeal of Revenue rejected. Issues involved:The issues involved in this case include the appeal filed by the Revenue to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, which partly allowed the appeal of the respondent by setting aside the order for payment of redemption fine but upholding the imposition of penalty.Facts of the case:The respondent imported marble/slabs requiring a license which they did not possess. The goods valued at Rs. 59,07,768/- could not be cleared within the stipulated time. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to a delay in filing, but later allowed the appeal partly, setting aside the redemption fine and directing the sale proceeds to be paid after deducting the penalty amount.Tribunal's decision:During the appeal hearing, conflicting decisions were cited. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench which held that once goods are auctioned, they can only be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. The Larger Bench also stated that sale proceeds cannot be paid without deducting the redemption fine. The question before the Larger Bench was whether sale proceeds should remain with the government or be paid to the importer after deduction. The Larger Bench concluded that sale proceeds would vest with the government if the goods are auctioned.High Court's decision:The respondent filed an appeal in the High Court which ruled in their favor, setting aside the decision of the Larger Bench. The High Court found no reason for the adjustment of redemption fine after the goods were sold by the revenue. The High Court's decision was accepted by the department, and no further appeal was pending before the Supreme Court.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the impugned order as the High Court had decided the question of law in favor of the assessee, and the decision had attained finality. The Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.(Order Pronounced on 03.04.2023)