1988 (9) TMI 232 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act.
2. Confiscation without an option to redeem.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Goods:
The primary issue was whether the confiscation of the goods was in accordance with the law. The Additional Collector of Customs had confiscated the goods because the description in the documents did not match the actual goods, and the country of origin was different. The documents described the goods as "Plastic moulded components - Plastic body of A.M. Radio," whereas the actual goods were labeled as "Plastic body of 3-in-1 two-tone electronic bicycle horns/A.M. Radio." Furthermore, the bill of entry indicated that the goods were from China, but the goods were marked as "Made in Hong Kong."

The Tribunal found that there was no significant discrepancy regarding the identity of the goods. The goods were shipped under Invoice No. M.N. 139-87, dated 27th October 1987, and were described in the same way in the Bill of Lading and Bill of Entry. The Tribunal noted that the goods were the same 1000 pieces of Plastic moulded components - Plastic body of A.M. Radio packed in 20 cartons and bearing marks 1-20. The additional description of "3-in-1 two-tone electronic bicycle horn" did not alter the identity of the goods. The Tribunal also accepted the clarification from the foreign exporter that the goods were manufactured in China but marked as "Made in Hong Kong" due to the use of old molds.

The Tribunal concluded that the goods were the same as those cleared by the Calcutta Customs and that there was no justification for the Varanasi Customs authorities to seize them. Therefore, the confiscation was not in accordance with the law.

2. Confiscation Without Option to Redeem:
Given the finding that the confiscation of the goods was not lawful, the question of whether the confiscation without an option to redeem needed to be interfered with did not arise. The Tribunal did not need to address this issue further.

3. Imposition of Penalty:
The Tribunal also considered whether the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act was justified. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not in accordance with the law. The appellant had established the identity of the goods and their lawful importation. The Tribunal noted that there was no burden on the appellant to prove the licit importation since the goods were the same as those cleared by the Calcutta Customs.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Additional Collector imposing the penalty and ordered the release of the goods in favor of the appellant.

Conclusion:
The appeal was accepted, and the confiscation of the goods and the imposition of the penalty were set aside. The Tribunal ordered the release of the goods to the appellant.