1999 (9) TMI 386 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Remands Appeals for Comprehensive Review of Confiscation & Penalties

The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the confiscation, ... Baggage - Confiscation - Penalty - Valuation Issues:1. Confiscation of spectacle frames and imposition of penalties.2. Determination of whether the goods were smuggled.3. Valuation of the goods for customs purposes.Issue 1: Confiscation of spectacle frames and imposition of penalties:The Commissioner had confiscated 3260 spectacle frames and imposed penalties of Rs. 15,00,000/- each on the appellants under Sections 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act. The appellants argued that the goods were declared on arrival, indicating no intention to smuggle, and that the spectacle frames were not banned items. They cited a Supreme Court case where confiscation was modified to allow payment of a fine. The appellants contended that the value of the goods was established by a proforma invoice, and the penalties imposed were unjustified. The Tribunal found the order to be non-speaking and remanded the matter for reconsideration.Issue 2: Determination of whether the goods were smuggled:The Department argued that since the quantity of goods exceeded baggage limits, an import license was required, and as one was not produced, confiscation was justified. The Tribunal noted that while the goods were not bona fide baggage, they were not absolutely banned items. Citing a relevant Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that absolute confiscation was not legally correct in this case as the goods were not notified under the Customs Act.Issue 3: Valuation of the goods for customs purposes:The appellants contended that the value of the goods should be based on a recovered proforma invoice, which was disregarded by the Commissioner. They argued that the adopted value was significantly higher than the transaction value indicated in the invoice. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not provide clear reasons for rejecting the invoice value and set aside the order for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a detailed assessment based on the evidence presented.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter for a fresh consideration, highlighting the need for a comprehensive review of the confiscation, penalties, and valuation of the spectacle frames. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a reasoned decision and full opportunity for the appellants to be heard during the reconsideration process.