9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable to imposition of fine under Section 125 and importer liable to penalty under Section 112 – However, mitigating factor is that appellant had in their purchase order specifically requested for fresh production so that at time of importation, shelf life norms could be adhered to or complied with – In these circumstances, in absence of mens rea and also considering that goods have been exported back, imposition of penalty under Section 112 is not warranted – Accordingly, penalty imposed is set aside – Also fine imposed upon appellant reduced – But for above modification, impugned order is sustained – Decided partly in favour of Assesse. - Appeal No. C/89390/14 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2015 - P R Chandrasekharan, Member (T),J. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the context of Packaging and Labelling Regulations under the FSS Act. The competent authority denied the permission to import the goods on the ground that the appellant therein had not complied with the regulations. However, Hon'ble High Court noted that the said regulations would not apply to raw materials which are required for further manufacture in India. The ratio of the said decision would apply in the facts of the present case also and therefore, the confiscation and consequent penal proceedings were not warranted at all. The learned Counsel also points out that while the adjudicating authority has sought to confiscate the goods under Section 111 (m) of the Act, the appellate authority has held that the goods are confiscable n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending or the appellant did not commit any mistake while undertaking the said imports. Inasmuch as in the declaration given the appellant had not indicated the shelf life, which was found to be less than the prescribed norms, there is a mis-declaration with respect to the material particulars attracting the provisions of Section 111 (m). Inasmuch as the goods are not permitted to be imported, the goods are also liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) and therefore, there is no contradiction in the orders passed by the lower authorities as far as the confiscability of the goods is concerned. Consequently, the goods, which are offending in character, is liable to confiscation attracting imposition of fine and the appellant is liable for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 112. However, the mitigating factor in the present case is that the appellant had in their purchase order specifically requested for fresh production so that at the time of importation, the shelf life norms could be adhered to or complied with. However, the foreign supplier has not ensured this request of the appellant in the purchase order. In these circumstances, in the absence of a mens rea and also considering that the goods have been exported back, imposition of penalty under Section 112 is not warranted. Accordingly, I set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant in the impugned order to the extent of ₹ 1.00 lakh. As regards the fine imposed under Section 125, inasmuch as the goods are liable to confiscation, the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
