9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement and filed the Bill of Entry but on perusal of the Bill of Entry, the Department found that there is a requirement of EPR certificate and is mandatory but the appellant did not furnish that certificate and in the absence of that certificate, the goods were confiscated and released in favour of the appellant for the purpose of re-export on payment of redemption fine and penalty. Further, in the meantime, the supplier of the goods got the EPR authorization from the CPCB and thereafter the appellant approached the Commissioner for amending the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act under which the respondent is empowered to amend the Bill of Entry - Further it is found that when the original importer has produced the EPR autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider the request of the appellant to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act. Appeal disposed off. - C/21668/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21714/2018 - Dated:- 5-11-2018 - Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J) Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Gopal Kumar, Joint Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 3-7-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the Commissioner has confiscated the goods for the purpose of re-export on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 4 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act. He has also imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... know only after filing the Bill of Entry. Further they admitted that they do not have EPR registration and therefore sought permission to re-export the goods by waiving the show cause notice. Thereafter the supplier M/s. Sato Argox India Pvt. Ltd. who had sold the goods to appellant on High Seas Sale basis got the EPR certificate on 24-8-2018 issued by the CPCB and requested the respondents to permit amendment of consignee in import documents in favour of M/s. Sato Argox India Pvt. Ltd. and copies of the said letter dated 26-6-2018 as well as the letter dated 27-8-2018 submitted by M/s. Sato Argox India Pvt. Ltd. are on record. But the request of the appellant has not yet been considered by the concerned officer on the ground that he does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey do not have any objection if the shipment is cleared by M/s. Sato Argox India Pvt. Ltd. 5. On the other hand, the Learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that once the appellants have violated the provisions of Customs Act as well as the Environment Protection Act, then the Commissioner is well within the right to confiscate the goods and release the same for re-export on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 4 lakhs and has also rightly imposed penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the appellant purchased the goods vide High Seas Sale Agreement and filed the Bill of Entry but on perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be. Therefore it is clear that under Section 149, the respondent has power to amend the Bill of Entry and connected documents as requested by the appellant. Further I find that the Customs Officer has the power to confiscate the goods if the necessary certificate is not produced and allow the re-export on payment of fine and penalty. But in the present case, imposition of redemption fine and penalty of ₹ 4 lakhs and ₹ 50,000/- respectively appears to be on higher side. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the same is reduced to ₹ 2 lakhs as redemption fine and ₹ 25,000/- as penalty. Accordingly, I reduce the redemption fine to ₹ 2 lakhs (Rupees two lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
