9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the importer accepts the order of confiscation and even the exporter offers willingness to accept back (re-export) the consignment, there cannot be any question of redemption fine. Therefore, the redemption fine imposed and upheld by the First Appellate Authority cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. Penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- A reading of the above Section makes it clear that the penalty under Section 112 (a) would be imposed in the case of improper importation of goods which has rendered the imported goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 and for this, I am of the opinion that abetment is not a criterion. Apparently, Clause (a) of Section 112 has two limbs the first being imprope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , according to it, the sample did not conform with the standards laid down for Mung Beans under Regulation 2.4.6.8 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. Consequently, they did not issue No Objection Certificate for the clearance; (ii) The appellant thereafter requested for re-export of the imported goods; (iii) The Adjudicating Authority passed Order-in-Original No. 34/2018-ADC dated 04.09.2018 after the appellant requested for adjudication without Show Cause Notice and without personal hearing vide its letter dated 09.08.2018; 2.2.1 Ld. Advocate would also submit that the appellant having requested for re-export and the foreign exporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 112 (a), Ld. Advocate submitted that the appellant had only placed order for Green Mung Beans , the commercial invoice for which is placed at page number 49/50 of the Appeal Memorandum. He also referred to the Packing List at page number 51 as also the Phytosanitary Certificate issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives, the United Republic of Tanzania, apart from the recommendation for release issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agricultural Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Government of India, dated 16.07.2018 to conclude that the appellant had absolutely no role as regards the quality of the goods that came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his contentions. 3.4 Ld. AR concluded that in view of the imported consignment being declared unfit for human consumption as the same was below par and not meeting with the standards prescribed by statutes relating to food safety, order of the First Appellate Authority needs to be sustained. 4. In reply to the above, Ld. Advocate relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Trilok Chand Jain Vs. State of Delhi reported in AIR 1977 S.C.C. 666 (S.C.). 5. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and have also gone through the various decisions relied upon by both the parties. 6. The scope of the appeal and the issue ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgeable thereon. [(2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-section (1), the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section (1), shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods.] [(3) Where the fine imposed under sub-section (1) is not paid within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of option given thereunder, such option shall become void, unless an appeal against such order is pending. Explanation . - For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that in cases where an order under sub-section (1) has been passed before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2018 receives the assent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) prevails and therefore, the appeal as regards this issue is allowed. 8.1 The next issue agitated by the appellant is the levy of penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereinbelow : SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. - Any person, - (a) 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, or 8.2.1 A reading of the above Section makes it clear that the penalty under Section 112 (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
