2023 (7) TMI 448 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - prepackaged bags intended for retail sale - violation of policy provisions or not - Confiscation - Penalty - HELD THAT - In view of the findings of the Commissioner (A) which are admitted by the appellant and based on the decision of the Tribunal, it is found that the importer has violated the conditions of Import Policy and did not comply with the conditions of the Notification No.29/2010. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Claim of benefit under Notification No.29/2010, 4% SAD exemption for imported cement bags intended for retail sale.
2. Violation of Import Policy provisions regarding declaration requirements on prepackaged commodities imported into India.
3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade Policy Act, 1992.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalty.

1. Claim of benefit under Notification No.29/2010:
The appellant-importer filed Bills of Entry for clearance of ordinary Portland Cement from Pakistan, claiming the benefit of 4% SAD exemption under Notification No.29/2010 for prepackaged bags intended for retail sale.

2. Violation of Import Policy provisions:
The appellant failed to comply with the declaration requirements of the Import Policy, specifically regarding the name and address of the importer, generic name of the commodity, net quantity, and maximum retail sale price on the imported packages. The goods were found to be in violation of policy provisions, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Confiscation and penalty:
The Commissioner noted that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under Section 112(a) for non-compliance with policy provisions. The importer did not provide evidence to substantiate that the goods were imported for retail sale, leading to the imposition of a fine and penalty.

4. Appeal proceedings:
The appellant appealed the confiscation and penalty order, but during the hearing, no one appeared for the appellant. The Tribunal decided to proceed with the matter on merits after considering the submissions of the Revenue's Authorised Representative.

5. Decision:
Based on the findings of the Commissioner and the precedent set by a previous Tribunal case, it was concluded that the importer had violated the Import Policy conditions and failed to comply with Notification No.29/2010. As the appellant admitted to the non-compliance, the impugned order of confiscation and penalty was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.


(Order pronounced in open court on 10.07.2023.)