1999 (4) TMI 387 - AT - Customs

Customs seizure upheld due to discrepancies in imported goods despite company's arguments. Liability confirmed for penalties.

The Customs Preventive Collectorate seized imported goods due to discrepancies in denier, weight, and quality. Despite the company's arguments, the ... Confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalty Issues:1. Seizure of goods by Customs Preventive Collectorate and proposed confiscation.2. Dispute over the acquisition of goods and penalties imposed.3. Disputed contentions in the notice of confiscation.4. Discrepancy in denier of imported yarn and seized yarn.5. Discrepancy in weight of imported goods and seized goods.6. Brand difference and sub-standard quality of seized goods.7. Liability of penalties on the appellants.Analysis:1. The Customs Preventive Collectorate seized 475 cartons of Polyester filament yarn stored in a warehouse. The company claimed the goods were imported and cleared after paying duty but failed to file the required declaration. The department proposed confiscation and penalties due to discrepancies in denier, weight, and carton numbers. The Collector ordered confiscation and penalties, leading to appeals by the company and its employees.2. The company disputed the contentions in the notice, but the Collector upheld the confiscation and penalties. The advocate argued against the correctness of the contentions, leading to a detailed examination of each issue raised.3. The first issue addressed was the denier discrepancy between the imported and seized yarn. The company relied on a letter suggesting denier variation due to storage conditions, but the significant 17% difference was not satisfactorily explained, supporting the Collector's decision.4. The weight difference between the imported and seized goods was also contested. The Collector found discrepancies in carton weights and numbers, indicating a lack of proper tallying and verification, which the company failed to adequately address.5. The brand difference and sub-standard quality of the seized goods further weakened the company's case. The failure to prove that the goods were not smuggled, coupled with the technical breach of Chapter IVA provisions, justified the confiscation upheld by the Collector.6. The liability for penalties on all appellants was confirmed, with no separate arguments presented to absolve the other two employees. The imposed penalties were deemed appropriate and not excessive, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.