9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of redemption fine is correct order and does not require any interference. The redemption fine ordered by the lower authorities is also proportionate and is not excessive - penalties imposed on the main appellant u/s 112(a) is correct, but the quantum of penalty seems to be excessive - the quantum of penalty reduced. Personal penalties imposed on the two individuals - Held that: - These employees being executives of the company cannot be held as liable to penalty, as the presence of municipal waste in the consignment being inevitable, it cannot be held that these individuals had any role to play in confiscation of the goods; in our considered view, the penalties imposed on the individuals are unwarranted. Appeal allowed in part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellants in the presence of CHA and found that the goods were a mixture of paper waste, plastic and metal containers of various domestic products like detergents, beverages and food items. These containers were unclean, unhygienic and were containing remnants of waste material. Prima-facie, this waste appeared to be municipal waste. It was revealed from the examination that the percentage of this waste varied from 8.75 to 46.92. The goods were got examined by the AP Pollution Control Board who, interalia, observed that waste paper was mixed with municipal solid waste. Further investigation in the matter revealed that similar consignments were imported from the same exporter through Tuticorin Port by M/s ITC Limited. The Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the putrefiable organic matter and destroy the same, it is his submission that this was done so as per the office memorandum of Ministry of Environment and Forests dated 10-02-2006, the upper Limit of the vide of putrefiable materials was fixed of total consignment which is 8% and while the percentage of such waste in the consignment in this case is just 2.71%, it is the submission that the adjudicating authority has erred in confiscating consignment for mis-declaration and also imposed penalties. He would submit that the presence of municipal in the waste paper imported by the appellant is inevitable. He would submit the penalties imposed on the main appellant as well as on the individuals is totally excessive and unwarranted. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and does not require any interference. The redemption fine ordered by the lower authorities is also proportionate and is not excessive. As regards as penalties imposed on the main appellant, we find the same has been imposed under section 112(a) is correct, at the same time, the quantum of penalty seems to be excessive. Accordingly, in our considered view, the penalty imposed on the main appellant M/s. ITC Ltd., needs to be reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/-. The impugned order in respect of the main appellant M/s.ITC Ltd., is upheld subject to this modification. 10. As regards the personal penalties imposed on the two individuals we find no reason to visit these individuals with penalties under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
