9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given discretion to allow re-export of goods found not fit for import with or without penalty - there is no error in the impugned order of the Commissioner in his exercising the discretion not to impose penalty. - non imposition of redemption fine was in terms of discretion under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with CBEC Circular. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/58/2010-CU[DB] With C/CROSS/112/2010 - C/A/71167/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 28-9-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Appellant Shri Mohd. Faraz Anees, Advocate, for Respondent ORDEER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Accordingly, the samples have been drawn and sent to PHO (CFL, Ghaziabad) for testing. Although it appears that for Lactose, BIS Standards are not mandatory in terms of relevant provisions of Appendix 3 Schedule I (Imports) of ITC (HS) Classification of Export Import Items, 2004-09, the above said circular clarifies that if the product fails the test, the Customs Authorities will ensure that the goods are re-exported out of the country by following the usual adjudication procedure or destroyed as required under the relevant rules. 8. In terms of CBEC Circular No.100/2003 dated 28/11/2003 the Board has mentioned that the Commissioner may use his discretion and allow re-export of goods on payment of nominal penalty or without any pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, etc. We further find that the learned Commissioner have allowed re-export in terms of the CBEC Circular No.100/2003Cus dated 28 th November, 2003, wherein the Board have given discretion to allow re-export of goods found not fit for import with or without penalty and accordingly, we find that there is no error in the impugned order of the Commissioner in his exercising the discretion not to impose penalty. We also find that the appellant had pleaded that lactoseunder import does not qualify under list of items for which BIS Standards was mandatory and further the item does not fall under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, read with Appendix 3 Schedule I (Imports) of ITC (HS) Classification of Export Import Items, 2004-09, 5. We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
