1990 (6) TMI 130 - AT - Customs

Waiver granted for penalty on imported goods due to ownership title discrepancy. Appeal accepted, penalty set aside.

The Tribunal granted a waiver of the penalty imposed on appellants by the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi, as they did not have ownership title ... Appeal - Pre-deposit of penalty Issues: Stay application regarding penalty waiver, ownership title over imported goods, conformity of goods to specifications, liability to penalty, misdeclaration, confiscation of goods.The judgment revolves around a stay application concerning the waiver of a penalty imposed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi. The appellants had entered into a sales contract for the import of old synthetic rags but faced issues with the documents related to the consignment. The State Bank of India did not negotiate the documents due to discrepancies, leading to the goods not being cleared by the appellants. The appellants received a show cause notice alleging that the goods did not meet the specifications of woollen rags. The appellants argued that they had no title over the goods as the documents were returned to the overseas bank and that the goods were completely premutilated synthetic rags permissible for import. The department contended that the goods were imported by the appellants and were not completely mutilated, thus liable for confiscation and penalty.The Tribunal considered the submissions and found merit in the appellants' argument regarding the importance of ownership title. Since the appellants had not filed a Bill of Entry and had not claimed the goods, the question of misdeclaration did not arise. As the goods had not been claimed by the appellants, the waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty was granted. The main appeal was then taken up for consideration with both sides reiterating their submissions. The Tribunal noted that while the appellants had placed the orders for importation, they had not claimed the goods, and the title of the goods remained with the suppliers as per the certificate from the State Bank of India. The goods were considered abandoned due to the appellants' inaction, and the Tribunal refrained from passing any order on the confiscation at that stage. Regarding the liability to penalty, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants had taken necessary precautions, had not retired the documents, and had not attempted to claim or clear the goods. As there was no misdeclaration proven by the department, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was accepted.