1998 (12) TMI 260 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns Customs order on fish oil confiscation, citing violations of natural justice

The Tribunal allowed all appeals, setting aside the order for confiscation of fish oil and vessel by Customs. The Tribunal found violations of natural ... Natural justice - Penalty Issues:1. Confiscation of fish oil and vessel by Customs.2. Valuation and classification of the fish oil.3. Imposition of penalties under Section 112 on various appellants.4. Liability of Ashit Shipping Services and Dave for penalties.5. Application of Section 111 clauses (d) and (f) for penalties and confiscation.Confiscation of Fish Oil and Vessel:The case involved the confiscation of fish oil and a vessel by Customs due to the presence of fish oil onboard, which was prohibited under the prevailing policy. The Customs officers discovered drums of fish oil during an inspection at a breaking yard, leading to the proposal for confiscation under Section 111. The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the vessel and fish oil, along with penalties imposed on the appellants.Valuation and Classification of Fish Oil:The importer disputed the classification of the substance as fish oil, arguing that the test reports provided were insufficient to conclusively prove it. The lack of clarity regarding the valuation of the oil and the absence of providing the basis for valuation raised concerns about the fairness of the confiscation. The Tribunal found that the principle of natural justice was violated due to inadequate evidence, leading to the setting aside of the confiscation and penalties pending further clarification.Imposition of Penalties under Section 112:Penalties were imposed on various appellants under Section 112 for their involvement in dealing with the fish oil. The Tribunal noted that mere involvement in Customs clearance activities should not automatically lead to penalties. The lack of specific details in the notice regarding the clauses of Section 112 invoked for penalties raised doubts about the justification for imposing penalties on the appellants.Liability of Ashit Shipping Services and Dave:The appellants argued that they were not directly involved in handling the fish oil and were appointed for facilitating vessel clearance and crew arrangements. They contended that their actions did not warrant penalties under Section 112. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not aware of the presence of the fish oil onboard, and the lack of evidence linking them to the prohibited goods led to the allowance of their appeals.Application of Section 111 Clauses for Penalties and Confiscation:The Customs invoked Section 111 clauses (d) and (f) for penalties and confiscation based on the non-declaration of fish oil in the manifest. However, the lack of explicit proposals in the notice regarding penalties under these clauses raised doubts about the legality of imposing penalties. The Tribunal concluded that the penalties were not justified under these clauses, especially considering the master of the vessel had already been penalized under Section 112.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and directing further review based on the clarifications and evidence presented during the proceedings.