9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant did not turn up on 19.11.2013. Accordingly, notice was further issued fixing the hearing today. 2. Today no one is present for the appellant nor there is any adjournment application. 3. Customs appeal No. 736/207 arose out of adjudication order dated 7.9.207 where learned Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant had imported 226800 kgs. of goods declaring that to be Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils (Vanaspati Ghee) from Nartha Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Sri Lanka in terms of Bill of Entry No. 1203 dated 11.7.2007 availing exemption under notification 02/2007-Cus dated 5.1.2007. Upon testing the sample of the said goods, customs authorities found that the goods imported under batch No. 15 & 18 of the import were not edible oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of penalty and in appeal case No. C/192/08 redemption fine reduced to Rs. 3.5 lakhs and penalty set aside, Revenue being aggrieved filed appeal before Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Hon'ble High Court by order dated 21.3.2013 in Customs appeal No. 9 & 10 remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh to examine the question as to whether consignment in question were stray import warranting imposition of fine and penalty or not. 8. In absence of the appellant we heard the matter extensively with the assistance of Revenue and also perused the grounds of appeal as well as material on record thoroughly. We have examined both the adjudication orders. 9. In adjudication order covered by appeal No. C/736/07 it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation was detected in both the cases the appellant sought re-export of offending goods. 12. So far as appeal No. C/736/07 is concerned, it is also noticeable fact that the value of goods was Rs. 20,18,876/- involving custom duty of Rs. 18,10,851/- and re-export was allowed. Learned Adjudicating Authority has allowed the re-export without imposing redemption fine while in appeal case No. C/192/08 finding mis-declaration, re-export was allowed imposing redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. 13. In appeal No. C/192/08, 323.55 M.T. of Bakery Shortening imported were not fit for human consumption as was found on testing and that remained uncontroverted and were not in conformity with A-19 of Appendix 'B' of PFA Rules, 1955. 14. When the imports of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed in adjudication should not be interfered. Whatever the quantum of import may be, when the goods become offending goods that contravenes the provisions of law of Customs and causes serious prejudice to public interest under Section 11(u) read with Section 11(k) of customs Act, 1962 which deals with offence relating to human life. Therefore both appeals should be dismissed. 16. So far as reduction of redemption fine and penalty is concerned, there is no formula prescribed or laid down for imposition of fine and penalty. In the case of CC Mumbai Vs. Mansi Impex 2011 (270) ELT 631(S.C) in Para 17, Hon'ble Supreme Court has criticized the arbitrary action of the Tribunal for its whim to reduce redem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
