9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is an exporter of marine products and has filed a Bill of Entry No.6286483 dt. 07/05/2018 through Customs Broker M/s. AER OCEA Pvt. Ltd. for clearance of 27000 kgs. of wild caught Frozen Cuttlefish whole with a declared value of Rs. 1,06,89,418/- (CIF) under Advance Authorisation Scheme. The importer has not produced the clearance from Animal Quarantine. Animal Quarantine office has rejected the clearance vide endorsement in single window. As per Para 7(B) of General Notes regarding Import Policy, the import of the item Frozen Cuttlefish whole shall be subject to a sanitary import permit to be issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Govt. of India, as per Section 3(A) of Livestock Importation Act, 1898 as am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the goods imported in question are not prohibited and therefore the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not attracted. He further submitted that imposition of redemption fine and penalty is not justified in law as there is no lapse on the part of the importer and the lapse if any is on the part of the supplier in not forwarding the necessary micro-biologic test reports which had to be issued by the testing laboratories at the port of export at Oman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent authority. He further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He says that the issue involved in the present case has been considered by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hemant Bhai R. Patel Vs. CC, Ahmedabad [2003(153) ELT 226 (Tri. LB)] wherein the Larger Bench has considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. which has been relied upon by the appellant and the Larger Bench has held that the decision of the apex court in the case of Siemens Ltd. is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Larger Bench has considered most of the judgments relied upon by the appellant and has recorded it is concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Hemant Bhai R. Patel is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the said case has held that Section 111 of the Customs Act gives power to customs officer to confiscate the goods imported, if any, all the provisions contained in sub-clauses is specific and Section 112 authorises the imposition of penalty. The Larger Bench has categorically held that it is open to the adjudicating authority to impose redemption fine as well as penalty even when permission is granted for re-exporting the goods. By following the ration of the Larger Bench, I am of the opinion that the adjudicating authority has the power to impose redemption fine and penalty. However, in the present case, imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
