Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (7) TMI 671 - AT - Customs


Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Justification of penalties and confiscation by the appellant.
3. Excess and shortage of goods in the Customs Bonded Warehouse.
4. Application of relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Reduction of redemption fine and penalties imposed.

Issue 1: Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962

The appellant held a Customs Private Bonded Warehouse Licence for storing various goods without payment of customs duty. The appellant offered to extend bonding for the items in bond, but discrepancies in stock were found. The lower authorities confiscated the goods and imposed penalties under sections 114 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contested the confiscation and penalties, arguing system deficiencies and lack of evidence supporting the actions taken by the revenue authorities.

Issue 2: Justification of penalties and confiscation by the appellant

The appellant's representative reiterated grounds of appeal, claiming that the excesses and shortages were due to system deficiencies. They argued that the confiscation of duty paid seized goods was based on presumptions without evidence of investigations by Customs. The appellant also contended that certain provisions of the Customs Act were incorrectly applied by the lower authorities and that the goods were never removed from the Warehouse, thus challenging the basis for confiscation and penalties.

Issue 3: Excess and shortage of goods in the Customs Bonded Warehouse

The appellant admitted to discrepancies in stock and offered to reconcile the same, agreeing to pay differential duty if necessary. The lower authorities seized excess and shortage of goods, leading to the confiscation and imposition of penalties. The appellant's failure to reconcile stocks regularly was noted, indicating errors on their part.

Issue 4: Application of relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962

The first appellate authority made factual findings, confirming the excess and shortage of goods in the Warehouse. The authority applied sections 113(k) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, in justifying the confiscation and penalties. The appellant's arguments regarding the application of these sections were countered by the authority's findings, upholding the actions taken by the lower authorities.

Issue 5: Reduction of redemption fine and penalties imposed

While upholding the findings of the lower authorities regarding confiscation and penalties, the appellate tribunal deemed the redemption fine excessive. The tribunal reduced the redemption fine from ?1,50,000 to ?75,000, considering it proportionate. The penalties imposed under sections 114 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, were upheld without interference, as they were deemed appropriate by the tribunal.

This judgment highlights the importance of maintaining accurate stock records in Customs Bonded Warehouses to avoid discrepancies and potential confiscation of goods. The tribunal's decision emphasizes the application of relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962, in determining penalties and confiscation, while also ensuring proportionate fines are imposed for violations.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates