9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he difference in the classification adopted by the appellant. The appellant has adopted the classification under Chapter 21 on the view that the goods are in the nature of betel nut products. Taking note of the fact that the goods are not cleared for home consumption and the appellant has also incurred huge detention-cum- demurrage charges, we are of the view that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is on the higher side, we hold that reducing the redemption fine to Rs.4,00,000/- and penalty to Rs.5,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice - the impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the redemption fine to Rs.4,00,000/- (for the purpose of re-export only) and also reducing the penalty im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority vide order impugned herein rejected the classification declared by the appellant and reclassified the goods under CTH 08028090. The declared value of the goods was also rejected and reassessed as Rs.4,31,34,619/-. The adjudicating authority ordered for confiscation of the goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.15 lakhs for the purpose of re-export only. A penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was also imposed under sec. 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and directed for re-export of the goods within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel Shri G. Shanmugam appeared for the appellant. He submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has suffered huge loss due to detention of the goods and the direction to re-export. He submitted that there was no intention to evade customs duty or to make any illegal gain. He prayed that a lenient view may be taken. 5. The learned AR Ms. G. Anandalakshmi appeared for the department. She supported the findings in the impugned order. She adverted to Notification No. 20/2015-2020 dated 25.7.2018. As per this notification, import of areca nuts-split are free only if the CIF value is more than Rs.251/- per kilogram. The goods in the present case being below the said value is prohibited for import. She adverted to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Raj Grow Impex LLP reported in 2021 (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 8. The learned counsel has relied upon various decisions to argue that redemption fine cannot be imposed when the goods are redeemed for the purpose of re-export only. However, we note that there is violation of the notification. Taking note of the fact that the goods are not cleared for home consumption and the appellant has also incurred huge detention-cum- demurrage charges, we are of the view that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is on the higher side, we hold that reducing the redemption fine to Rs.4,00,000/- and penalty to Rs.5,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 9. In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the redemption fine to Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
