9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Commissioner of Customs, the goods have been re-exported also vide various shipping bills which are on record dated 05.02.2018. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. [1999 (8) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that once the goods are re-exported then in that event, the redemption fine is not imposable - thus, redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner for the purpose of re-export is not sustainable in law. Penalty - Held that:- Since the appellant has violated the conditions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) is justified - penalty upheld. Appeal allowed in part. - C/20574/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21480/2018 - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Eight only) 3284359 dated 18.09.2017 with a declared assessable value of ₹ 63,17,144.00 (Rupees Sixty Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred and Forty Four only) and with duty liability of ₹ 19,04,871.60 (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy One only) in group VII, under MEIS and Bill of Entry Number 3941363 dated 10.11.2017 with a declared assessable value of ₹ 19,38,036.79 (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand and Thirty Six only) and with duty liability of ₹ 5,84,396.00 (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six only) in Group V for clearance of goods described as Galvanised steel Tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty and thereafter goods covered by the said four Bills of Entry were re-exported under the cover of four different shipping bills bearing No. 105678, 105679, 105680 and 105681 of dated 05.02.2018. He further submitted that once the goods have been re-exported then the imposition of redemption fine and penalty is not sustainable in law. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C). He further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court was subsequently followed by the Mumbai Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Zenith Rubber Plastic Works Vs. CC, Mumbai reported in 2010 (262) E.L.T. 272. 4. On the other hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stainable in law. Therefore, I set aside the imposition of redemption fine. Further I find that the Commissioner has also imposed the penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 provided that any person, who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable to a penalty. 6. In this case since the appellant has violated the conditions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) is justified and therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
