9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 68 - AT - CustomsRedemption of goods for the purpose of re-export only - Section 125 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - Tribunal in the case of NATHI MAL RUGAN MAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NHAVA SHEVA RAIGAD 2018 (11) TMI 99 - CESTAT MUMBAI after referring to Section 125 of the Customs Act 1962 as well as various decisions have observed that no such condition that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export can be imposed. Further in the case of HBL POWER SYSTEMS LTD. VERSUS CC VISAKHAPATNAM 2018 (7) TMI 793 - CESTAT HYDERABAD similar view was taken. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export is unjustified - The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the direction by the commissioner (Appeals) that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export. As already directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the adjudicating authority shall quantify the redemption fine payable by the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues: Appeal against order directing redemption of goods for re-export only, imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: 1. Issue of Redemption for Re-export: The case involved the appellant's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order directing the redemption of goods for re-export only. The appellant argued that under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, they should have the option to redeem the goods for home consumption as well. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision and contended that imposing a condition for re-export only was unjustified. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and highlighted that the Customs Act does not empower the adjudicating authority to compel re-export. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and directed the adjudicating authority to quantify the redemption fine within 30 days, allowing the goods to be redeemed without the condition of re-export. 2. Imposition of Penalty: The original authority had imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, which was not disturbed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant did not contest the penalty in the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's judgment did not interfere with the penalty imposed, indicating that the penalty under Section 112(a) remained upheld. 3. Legal Interpretation and Precedents: The Tribunal's decision was based on legal interpretations of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, and precedents from previous cases. The Tribunal cited a Mumbai Bench decision and a case involving HBL Power Systems Ltd. to support its conclusion that the appellant should have the option to redeem the goods for home consumption. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority cannot impose conditions beyond the scope of the Customs Act. The judgment highlighted the limitations on the powers of adjudicating authorities and affirmed the appellant's right to redeem the goods without the restriction of re-export. In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the order to remove the condition of re-export for redeeming the goods and directing the adjudicating authority to quantify the redemption fine within a specified timeframe. The penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, remained upheld as it was not contested by the appellant during the appeal. The judgment provided a detailed legal analysis, citing relevant provisions of the Customs Act and previous decisions to support the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
|
