Case Law Details
Bindeshwari Poddar Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Kolkata)
In a recent ruling by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata, the case of Bindeshwari Poddar vs Commissioner of Customs involved the seizure of plastic scrap from Nepal. The tribunal’s decision centered on whether the seized goods were legally imported or illegally procured.
The incident occurred when officers intercepted a truck carrying plastic scrap and granules of Nepalese origin. The goods were seized under suspicion of illegal procurement. Bindeshwari Poddar, owner of M/s. Rachna Enterprises, claimed ownership of the seized goods (excluding plastic granules), asserting they were legally imported under a valid bill of entry.
The adjudicating authority imposed significant penalties and redemption fines on Poddar and the vehicle owner. However, during the appeal, Poddar’s counsel presented evidence supporting the legal importation of the goods under the mentioned bill of entry. This included documentation affirming the import and statements from customs officials corroborating the lawful entry of the goods.
The tribunal reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was insufficient proof to support the allegation of illegal procurement. It noted discrepancies in the quantity seized compared to the documented imports but found no evidence of intentional wrongdoing or attempt to evade duties.
In its final decision, CESTAT Kolkata overturned the confiscation order and redemption fines imposed on the plastic scrap valued at Rs. 2,16,180/-. The tribunal directed the customs authorities to release the seized goods to Poddar, acknowledging the legality of their procurement. Additionally, the penalty initially imposed on Poddar was significantly reduced, considering the circumstances surrounding the plastic granules.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
On 16.06.2016 the Officers of SSB intercepted a truck bearing registration No.BR-01-GB-0383. In the truck, plastic scrap and granules were found which were of Nepalese origin. The truck and the goods in question were seized on 16.06.2016 and Seizure Receipt was issued by the officials. The present Appellant Shri Bindeshwari Poddar, who is the owner of M/s. Rachna Enterprises came forward to claim the ownership of the seized goods (except plastic granules) on the ground that the goods in question were legally procured and imported from Nepal under Bill of Entry No.5638434 dated 15.06.2016. Since the goods in question had already suffered duty, they submitted that the goods are not liable for seizure or confiscation. After due process, the lower authorities confirmed the demand. Towards the seized scrap valued at Rs.2,16,180/-, the Adjudicating authority imposed redemption fine of Rs.50,000/-. Towards seized plastic granules, weighing 2323 Kgs., valued at Rs.1,16,150/-, he imposed redemption fine of Rs.20,000/-. He also confiscated the vehicle valued at Rs.7,50,000/- and gave an option to the owner to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1,30,000/-. The vehicle owner Shri Abhay Kumar was imposed with a penalty of Rs.20,000/-. The present Appellant Shri Bindeshwari Poddar was imposed with a penalty of Rs.14,854/-. The owner of the vehicle has not preferred any Appeal.
2. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant Shri Bindeshwari Poddar (owner of M/s. Rachna Enterprises) submits that initially they had not claimed the ownership of the granules weighing 2323 kgs. valued at Rs.1,16,150/-. However, since they are in the business of plastic goods, they have paid the redemption fine of 20,000/- and are ready to pay the relevant duty on the same. Hence, they are not disputing the order passed by the Adjudicating authority in respect of the granules.
3. In respect of the plastic scrap seized, the Ld. Counsel submits that the quantity seized is for about 9388 kgs. whereas the Appellant has been able to show the proof of import under Bill of Entry No.5638434 dated 15.06.2016 for a quantity of 11,000 kgs.. Since the Bill of Entry is dated 15.06.2016 and the seizure has taken place on 16.06.2016 in the Jogbani border area, where the Appellant’s registered office is situated, it clearly proves that they were moving only the properly imported goods within India.
4. She also points out to the fact that the Assistant Commissioner, Jogbani has intimated the Customs officers of Forbesgunj that the seized plastic scrap has been imported legally under Bill of Entry No.5638434 dated 20.06.2016.
5. Based on these facts, she prays that the impugned order may be set side and the Appeal may be allowed.
6. The Ld.AR for the Department reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that there is a difference between the quantity seized and the quantity shown in the Bill of Entry and in the invoice. Accordingly, he justifies the orders passed by the lower authorities.
7. Heard both sides and perused the Appeal papers and other documentary evidences placed before me.
8. Coming to the seized granules weighing 2323 kgs. valued at 1,16,150/-, the Appellant is not disputing the order passed by the Adjudicating authority. They are ready to pay the redemption fine of Rs.20,000/- towards the same. I direct them to pay the applicable Customs duty along with interest so as to close this issue.
9. In respect of the plastic scrap seized valued at Rs.2,16,180/-, I find that the documentary evidence clarifies that the Appellant had imported the 11,000 kgs. on 15.06.2016 vide Bill of Entry No.5638434, which is also affirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner and the invoice raised by them is for 10,000 kgs., whereas, the goods in question were weighted at 9388 kgs.. Reading together all these documents, I find that enough evidence has been provided by the Appellant to the effect that these are not procured illegally from Nepal, but are legally procured goods. Therefore, I set aside the confiscation order and the redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the scrap valued at Rs.2,16,180/-. The Revenue is directed to release the plastic scrap to the Appellant forthwith.
10. So far as the penalty of Rs.14,854/- imposed on Shri Bindeshwari Poddar is concerned, I find that in respect of plastic scrap, there is no case made out against the Appellant. However, in case of plastic granules, the Appellant though initially has not claimed the ownership, but has come forward to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and the relevant payment of the relevant Customs duty. Based on these facts, the penalty of Rs.14,854/- is reduced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).
11. The Appellant has made a Security Deposit of Rs.64,854/-. This amount should be utilized to appropriate the redemption fine of Rs.20,000/- in respect of granules and the penalty imposed on Shri Bindeshwari Poddar and against the balance Customs duty and interest to be paid by the Appellant.
12. The Appeal is disposed of thus.
Author Bio
