2023 (8) TMI 1054 - AT - Customs

Appeals favor appellants: penalties set aside. No further penalty imposed due to timely payment. Confiscation and fines revoked.

Shri Gurudas Kamat Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai And M/s Zuari Structural Works & Engineers Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai

Shri Gurudas Kamat Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai And M/s Zuari Structural Works & Engineers Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), ... Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner of Customs upholding re-determination of assessable value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.Re-determination of assessable value and confiscation of goods:The appellants contested the order on the grounds of no mis-declaration of goods' value, seeking benefit under Section 114A for timely payment of duty and penalty. The appellant M/s. Zuari Structural Works & Engineers had paid the duty amount along with interest during adjudication proceedings and 25% of the penalty within the stipulated time. The appellant Shri Gurudas Kamat, not being the importer, argued against the application of penalty provisions. The Tribunal noted the timely payment by the appellants and held that no further penalty should be imposed, setting aside the penalty confirmed on M/s. Zuari Structural Works & Engineers.Imposition of penalty on non-importer:Regarding the appeal by Shri Gurudas Kamat, a partner of M/s. Zuari Structural Works & Engineers, the Tribunal ruled that penalty provisions under Section 114A cannot be applied to him as he is not the importer of the goods in question. The appeal by Shri Gurudas Kamat was allowed, setting aside the penalty imposed on him.Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine:In the case of confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine, the Tribunal observed that the appellant was a high sea purchaser who submitted all required documents for customs clearance. As there was no mis-declaration of value, the provisions of Section 111(m) were not contravened. The original authority rightly penalized M/s. Mallesh & Co., recognized as a distinct entity, for any mis-declaration. The Tribunal held that the appellant, being the high sea purchaser, should not be penalized for confiscation under Section 111(m). Consequently, the redemption fine imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.Conclusion:Both appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellants, setting aside penalties and redemption fines imposed, based on the timely payment of duties and the non-applicability of penalty provisions on a non-importer.