2007 (3) TMI 44 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of good Department contended that appellant indulge in confiscation of goods and imposing penalty accordingly Tribunal rejected the department contention and set aside penalty

Summary

Issues:
- Benefit of a Notification under the DEEC Scheme granted by the Commissioner of Customs
- Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and penalty imposition under Section 112
- Challenge against the Commissioner's order by the department
- Examination report and confessional statement not considered by the Commissioner
- Alleged errors in relying on Board's instructions and allowing clearance without ordering mutilation
- Lack of representation from the respondents

Analysis:

1. The Commissioner of Customs granted the benefit of a Notification under the DEEC Scheme to the respondents for two consignments of goods declared as "non-alloy steel melting scrap." The goods were imported in two consignments and declared for home consumption. Upon physical examination, discrepancies were found in the composition of the goods. A show-cause notice was issued for confiscation and penalty imposition, which was contested by the respondents. The Commissioner accepted the importer's contention that the consignments did not contain materials falling under the definition of "Waste and Scrap" and ordered the release of goods subject to end-use conditions.

2. The department challenged the Commissioner's order, primarily arguing that crucial evidence, such as the examination report and the importers' confessional statement, was not considered. The department also questioned the reliance on Board's instructions and the lack of ordering mutilation before clearance. However, the Tribunal noted that the department failed to produce the examination report, confessional statement, or the relevant instructions. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the end-use condition imposed as a safeguard against misuse of the goods.

3. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order adequately addressed the concerns raised by the department. The end-use condition requiring the goods to be melted in a furnace, with evidence provided by a certificate from the Central Excise Range Officer, served as a safeguard against potential misuse. The absence of a request for mutilation from the importer at any stage further supported the Commissioner's decision. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, concluding that no grounds were established for interference in the Commissioner's decision.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to grant the benefit of the DEEC Scheme to the respondents and release the goods subject to end-use conditions, dismissing the department's appeal due to the lack of substantial evidence and failure to establish grounds for interference.