9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported the item is not one of the ports specified for such import - The importer is also required to register himself with the Designated Authorities under the Insecticides Act ibid. The appellant’s registration certificate dated 30/06/2008 was not valid at the time of import. Further the goods have been imported from China as against the designated source in UK. The import has also been done through a port which is not notified for permissible imports. In view of the above facts, it is established that the import of pesticides made by the appellant is in contravention of the conditions specified under the Insecticides Act Rules for import of such goods. Consequently, the imported goods are liable for confiscation in terms of Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the factory of the appellant were seized and proceedings were initiated against the appellant by issue of show cause notice dated 01/07/2015 for irregular import of insecticides. The proceedings were finalized by the Original Authority by its order dated 17/02/2017 ordering confiscation of the seized insecticides and imposition of penalty. When the issue was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) the findings of the lower Authority were upheld. Aggrieved by the impugned order present appeal has been filed. 3. With the above background we heard Shri R.K. Tomar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri H.C. Saini, Ld. DR for the Revenue. 4. The case of the appellant argued by the Ld. Counsel is summarized below:- i. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the fact that the value of the imported goods was only of the order of ₹ 19.7 Lakhs. 5. The arguments of the Ld. DR are summarized below:- i. He submitted that in terms of Section (3) of the Insecticides Act 1968 read with Rule 45 of the Insecticides Rules 1971, Insecticides are allowed for import into India only after registration of the importer and that to only from approved sources through a specified port. At the time of the import of the insecticides in question, these goods were allowed for import only from a specified source in UK and the import was allowed only through Nhava sheva Port. The appellant has imported goods from a different source in China and through ICD Pithampur. It is his argument that the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pur, through which the appellant had imported the item is not one of the ports specified for such import. 9. The importer is also required to register himself with the Designated Authorities under the Insecticides Act ibid. 10. As per the facts on record, I note that the appellant s registration certificate dated 30/06/2008 was not valid at the time of import. Further the goods have been imported from China as against the designated source in UK. The import has also been done through a port which is not notified for permissible imports. In view of the above facts, it is established that the import of pesticides made by the appellant is in contravention of the conditions specified under the Insecticides Act Rules for import of such goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the conclusion that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 11 (o), next we consider the plea of the appellant that the penalty imposed under 112 (a) is exorbitant. Section 112 provides for imposition of penalty for improper importation of goods upto an amount not exceeding the value of the goods or ₹ 5000/- whichever is greater. The value of goods as assessed in bill of entry is ₹ 19.4 Lakh. Consequently, the penalty imposed is beyond the statutory limit. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I reduce the penalty from ₹ 25 Lakh to ₹ 15 Lakh. 15. But for the above modification the impugned order is upheld. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. ( Order pronounced in the ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
