2004 (2) TMI 247 - AT - Customs

Duty demand set aside in appeal as redemption of confiscated goods is crucial under Customs Act

The appeal was disposed of with the duty demand set aside, while the confiscation and penalty were maintained. The Tribunal clarified that duty is not ... Demand Issues:1. Import of medical equipment with spares/accessories against Custom Duty Exemption Certificate.2. Allegations of non-fulfillment of conditions of the notification leading to a detailed enquiry.3. Confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, and involvement of DGHS.4. Duty demand and redemption of confiscated goods.5. Interpretation of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act regarding payment of duty.Analysis:1. The appellants imported medical equipment with spares/accessories against a Custom Duty Exemption Certificate. Allegations arose regarding the non-fulfillment of conditions of the notification, including providing free treatment to patients. An enquiry was initiated based on discrepancies found during a physical verification of the equipment at the hospital in Bangalore. The general manager admitted to charging fees from patients and not fulfilling certain conditions of the notification, leading to a show cause notice alleging wilful misstatement and suppression of facts.2. The Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, adjudicated the notice, ordering confiscation of goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and duty. The penalty was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, but proceedings against the DGHS were dropped. The appellants appealed, primarily seeking to avoid duty confirmation as they were relinquishing their claim to the confiscated goods and not opting for redemption.3. The appellants cited precedents to argue that duty is not payable when goods are confiscated and not redeemed. The Tribunal considered the arguments and relevant case law, including the Supreme Court judgment in a similar case. It was held that duty is not payable if the option of redemption is not exercised, and the use of imported equipment by the appellants did not amount to exercising the redemption option before the adjudication order.4. The Tribunal found that the duty demand was not sustainable in the absence of the redemption of goods. However, the confiscation and penalty were upheld as they were not challenged by the appellants. The judgment clarified the interpretation of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, emphasizing that duty payment is contingent upon the redemption of confiscated goods.5. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of with the duty demand set aside, while the confiscation and penalty were maintained. The judgment provided clarity on the applicability of duty payment in cases of confiscated goods and the exercise of the redemption option under the Customs Act.