9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o fulfillment of stipulated conditions which are to be complied with by the exporter. Noncompliance thereof may entail an importer to undergo 100% inspection of the entire consignment. That would not tantamount to improper import of goods as required by Section 111 of the Act - Levy of redemption fine and penalty set aside - Decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.C/21809/2015 - FINAL ORDER No. A/30016/2016 - Dated:- 30-12-2015 - Ms.Sulekha Beevi C.S. Judicial Member Shri S.C.Choudhary, Consultant for the Appellant Shri Prasad, AR for Respondent ORDER [Order per: Ms.Sulekha Beevi ,C.S] 1. The appellant challenges the confiscation of imported shredded scrap and imposition of penalty for want of valid pre-shipmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order, the goods were confiscated holding that the condition prescribed in para 2.32 in Hand Book of Procedures was not complied and that in the absence of valid PSIC the goods would fall within the ambit of prohibited goods being liable for confiscation. The appellant was given an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 22,00,000/- and the order also imposed penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/-. Aggrieved the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. The learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had substantially complied the condition of furnishing a PSIC. The agency which issued PSIC is an agency listed and authorized as per DGFT, India vide Public Notice No.38(RE.2012)(2009-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inition of prohibited goods. That therefore, the goods were rightly confiscated and the redemption fine and penalty imposed is reasonable and justified. 5. I have gone through the records and considered the rival submissions carefully. In the impugned order the Commissioner, has observed that the goods on examination was found to be in conformity with the conditions stipulated in Foreign Trade Policy, except for the non-production of valid PSIC. The case on hand, is not one in which PSIC was not furnished at all. The appellants have furnished the PSIC issued by an agency which is a listed agency for most of the countries. European Union is also included in the said list. But Norway is not seen mentioned. In fact, as per the Public Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Handbook of procedures, such a violation is by the exporter in the first instance. The importer had, in fact, produced the certificate of inspection and the only dispute that was raised was that the agency not having been notified and specified on the date of inspection prior to shipment. However, once it is found that the violation has not resulted in any specified categories of items being imported, the importer cannot be punished for the lapse on the part of the exporter considering that the legal obligation has been cast on the exporter to furnish the documents. Section 11(d) of the Act permits confiscation of goods improperly imported, namely any goods imported: (i) contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under the Act, or ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
