2016 (4) TMI 682 - AT - Customs

Confiscation as prohibited goods - Seizure of silver oak wood - Re-export allowed on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - by following the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Elephanta Oil and Industries Ltd. 2003 (1) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and followed by Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Chennai Marine Trading (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport - Import), Chennai 2014 (9) TMI 326 - Madras High Court , the appellant is directed to deposit ₹ 50,000/- towards redemption fine and entire amount of penalty and make prayer for re-export since mis-declaration surfaced on record. Such mis-declaration required the public exchequer to incur cost seeking report from the forest department. Also mis-declaration being found to be deliberate, imposition of penalty of Rs. One lakh is uninterfered. - Decided partly in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of silver oak wood as prohibited goods.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of penalty when goods are re-exported.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the seizure and confiscation of silver oak wood as prohibited goods, leading to the imposition of a redemption fine and penalty. The adjudicating authority allowed re-export of the goods upon payment of a redemption fine of Rs. One lakh. The appellant sought to re-export the goods within the stipulated time by the Tribunal upon appeal adjudication.

2. Regarding the redemption fine, the appellant argued that when re-export is permitted, there should be no redemption fine, citing the decision of the Apex Court in Siemens Limited Vs. Collector of Customs. The Tribunal considered this argument in light of the relevant legal provisions and past judicial decisions.

3. The issue of penalty imposition under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was also raised. The appellant contended that when goods are re-exported, such a penalty should not apply. The Tribunal examined the legal provisions and relevant case law to determine the applicability of the penalty in cases of re-export of prohibited goods.

4. The Revenue supported the adjudication, and after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal analyzed the legal position. The Tribunal referred to the well-settled law established by the Apex Court and the High Court of Madras regarding the imposition of redemption fine and penalty even in cases where re-export is allowed.

5. Based on the legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000 and the full penalty amount due to deliberate mis-declaration. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty of Rs. One lakh, considering the findings of mis-declaration and the costs incurred by the public exchequer.

6. Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal providing a detailed rationale for its decision based on the legal principles and precedents cited in the judgment. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court, concluding the legal proceedings on the matter.