Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (9) TMI 1013

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... October, 2016 , wherein the said Committee has decided that its intention was not to allow used tyres for use as such . In view of the above, therefore, it is incumbent upon the Adjudicating Authority to deliberate / adjudicate as to whether the importer has used the imported waste/used tyres as such or not. The Adjudicating Authority has accepted the plea of the respondent that the respondent had debited the licence for single-cut bead tyres that did not require DGFT licence, has also observed at paragraph 26 of his order that he has found nothing adverse with regard to the intended use (outcome of investigation of the concerned Revenue authorities) nor was there any evidence to even suggest the same from the communication issued by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o reducing the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. 2. The only issue, therefore, to be decided by me is: whether the waiver of redemption fine and reduction in penalty under Section 112 ibid. by the First Appellate Authority is in order? 3. Heard Shri S. Balakumar, Learned Assistant Commissioner for the appellant-Revenue and Shri E. Ramesh, Learned Advocate for the respondent. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the various decisions relied upon during the course of arguments. 5. Brief facts, as could be gathered from the Show Cause Notice as well as the Order-in-Original, which are relevant for my consideration, are as under: - The r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds were under process of clearance at Chennai Port. The cargo available under Customs Control were kept on hold vide letter of even no. dated 26.09.2019 for further investigation. 6. A Show Cause Notice dated 20.12.2019 was issued inter alia proposing that the goods in question were restricted for import which required an authorization from DGFT for import; that the import of waste/used Rubber Tyre Scrap of 23649.5 M.T. valued at Rs.9,41,35,915/- was without any valid DGFT authorization as well as the permission of MoEF CC; that the above import was in violation of the prohibitions imposed under the FT (DR) Act, 1992; that the same, therefore, appears to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, the respondent has accepted the order of the First Appellate Authority. 7.1 Admittedly, the default committed by the respondent is the importation of excess quantity of waste/used Rubber Tyre Scrap over a period of time. The Adjudicating Authority has discussed about the instructions/import policy of the DGFT to inter alia hold that the excess import by the respondent was in violation of the above statutory policies. The Adjudicating Authority has also referred to the Decisions of 57th meeting of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) under the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Trans-boundary Movement) Rules, 2008 held on 18th and 19th October, 2016 , wherein the said Committee has decided that its intention was not to allow us .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or omission in clause (a) to Section 112 ibid. or the acquisition, etc., under clause (b) to Section 112 ibid. are conscious acts or omissions and hence, the intention plays an important role while deciding about penalty. In the instant case, the Adjudicating Authority has recorded the bona fide contentions of the respondent that the respondent has debited the licence, that there was no proof as to the use of the goods other than for the intended purposes, which only leads to a possible conclusion that there were no mala fides involved on the part of the importer. 10. In view of the above discussion, therefore, I am of the clear view that the Revenue has not satisfied the conditions laid down under Section 112 (a) or (b) ibid. to justify .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates