9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to imposition of RF and penalty on imported goods due to lack of provision in Customs Tariff Act. Analysis: The case involved appeals arising from orders imposing Anti-dumping Duty on imported Mulberry Raw Silk of Grade 2A, along with confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty. The key issue was the challenge to the imposition of Redemption Fine (RF) and penalty on the grounds that there was no provision for such imposition in terms of Section 9 of the Customs Tariff Act, which specifically provides for the imposition of Anti-dumping Duty. The appellant's representative argued that the Apex Court had previously ruled on a similar matter, stating that there was no provision for confiscation and penalty in the Central Excise Act concerning the imposition of Anti-dumping Duty. Reference was made to various judgments by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, which supported the appellant's contention. The representative highlighted an amendment to Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, to address this issue, and requested the setting aside of the RF and penalty. The JCDR representing the respondent conceded that the issue was in favor of the assessee, acknowledging the lack of provision for confiscation and imposition of RF and penalty at the time of imposing the Anti-dumping Duty on the imported goods. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that there was indeed no provision for confiscation and imposition of RF and penalty under the Customs Act when the Anti-dumping Duty was imposed in the relevant imports. Citing precedents set by the Apex Court, High Court, and the Tribunal, which had previously set aside orders of confiscation and directed the release of goods without payment of fines and penalties in similar cases, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the imposition of fine and penalty in the present case was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any.
|
