2024 (10) TMI 987 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Overturns Penalty and Confiscation Under Customs Act; Goods Correctly Declared and Exemption Claim Valid.

The National Sport Club of India Versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Raigad, Maharashtra

The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty imposed under Sections 111(m) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, finding ... Classification of imported goods - SVPS Chillers - to be classified under CTH 84198940 or not - benefit of notification dated 17.03.2012 - HELD THAT:- The provisions for confiscation of improperly importation of the goods are contained in Section 111 ibid. The goods which do not correspond in respect of the value or in any other particulars are liable for confiscation under Clause (m) of Section 111 ibid - In the present case, the appellants had filed the Bill of Entry on the basis of the import documents such as commercial invoice, packing list etc. They have also claimed the correct classification of the imported goods. Claiming of wrong exemption notification is not a condition precedent for invocation of clause (m) in Section 111 ibid, for confiscation of the goods. This Tribunal, in an identical matter, in the case of M/S. SIRTHAI SUPERWARE INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-III [2019 (10) TMI 460 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has set aside confiscation of goods and also imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) ibid, holding 'From plain reading of the said clauses of Section 111, we do not find that these sub clauses, are applicable to cases where the classification of claim of exemption is found to be erroneous. The fact that the goods correspond to declaration in respect of the description and value is sufficient to take the imported goods away from the application of these two clauses. Hence the order holding goods liable for confiscation and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) cannot be sustained.' Further, this Tribunal in the case of JK. INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [1996 (6) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] has also held that claim for exemption is not a declaration for the purpose of Section 111(m) ibid and hence, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty are liable to be set aside. In view of the fact that the appellant herein had not contravened clauses (m) and (o) of Section 111 ibid at the time of importation of goods, the confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty by the authorities below are not in conformity with the statutory provisions. Therefore, there are no merits in the impugned order, insofar as it has upheld the confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellants - appeal allowed. Issues:1. Classification of imported goods under CTH 84198940 and benefit of Notification No.21/2012-Cus.2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Invocation of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).4. Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order dated 07.07.2014.Detailed Analysis:1. The case involved the classification of goods declared as SVPS Chillers under CTH 84198940 and the claimed benefit of Notification No.21/2012-Cus. The Bill of Entry was self-assessed by the appellants under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs department observed that the exemption claimed was only applicable to packaged commodities for retail sale under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The original authority re-assessed the Bill of Entry, confiscating the goods under Section 111(m) with a redemption fine and imposing a penalty. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.2. The issue of confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) was raised. The appellants argued that the confiscation and penalty were not justified as there was no mis-declaration regarding the importation of goods. They contended that the provisions of Section 111(m) should not apply in this case. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and held that wrong exemption notification does not necessarily invoke Section 111(m). The Tribunal found that the goods corresponded to the declaration in terms of description and value, thus setting aside the confiscation and penalty.3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) invoked Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, which was not invoked by the original authority. The appellants argued that since the re-assessment order was based on Section 111(m), the Commissioner was not competent to invoke Section 111(o) during the appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the provisions of Section 111(m) and (o), concluded that the goods were not liable for confiscation under either clause at the time of importation.4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the case records, found that the confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty were not in accordance with the statutory provisions. Therefore, the impugned order upholding the demands on the appellants was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.