1998 (2) TMI 373 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Confiscation, Reduces Redemption Fine: Key Emphasis on Verifying Market Prices

The tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and dismissed the appeal, except for reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 15,00,000/- and the penalty to Rs. ... Import - Advance licence Issues:1. Confiscation of goods under import for duty-free import eligibility.2. Classification of imported goods as parts of spectacle frames or finished spectacle frames.3. Consideration of re-export of goods.4. Determination of redemption fine based on assessable value and duty imposed.Analysis:Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolved around the confiscation of goods under import for not meeting the eligibility criteria for duty-free import as per Notification No. 204/92, dated 19-5-1992. The lower authorities contended that the goods did not match the description provided in the advance license, leading to the confiscation of the goods.Issue 2: The dispute arose regarding the classification of the imported goods as parts of spectacle frames or finished spectacle frames. The appellants argued that the goods were only parts of spectacle frames and required substantial finishing operations before being marketable. However, the authorities maintained that the goods, accompanied by screws, were in the shape of finished spectacle frames, justifying the confiscation.Issue 3: The consideration for re-export of the goods was also deliberated upon. The appellant presented a letter from the foreign supplier explaining the combination of parts to prevent mismatch. However, the tribunal dismissed the re-export plea as the imported goods were deemed to be in the form of spectacle frames, rendering the communication from the supplier post-offense detection less credible.Issue 4: The determination of the redemption fine was based on the assessable value of the goods and the duty imposed. Discrepancies arose in fixing the price per spectacle frame, with the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) differing in their assessments. The appellants provided invoices showing varying prices per frame, which were not adequately considered by the lower authorities.In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and dismissed the appeal, except for reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 15,00,000/- and the penalty to Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The decision highlighted the importance of verifying market prices through proper procedures and considering all relevant evidence before imposing fines or penalties in such cases.