9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oundary Movement) Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. KUTTY IMPEX [ 2022 (9) TMI 1049 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , wherein it was held that the First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of the goods in question, and since there is no change in the facts, the same is required to be followed in the case on hand as well. Following the above ratio decidendi, therefore, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 40393-40394 of 2022 - FINAL ORDER NOs. 40330-40331/2022 - Dated:- 23-9-2022 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S. Balakumar, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri S. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Rules, 2016, authorization of DGFT under FTP, 2015-20 and applicability of BIS as required under Compulsory Registration Order, 2012, apart from compliance to the RMS instructions. 4. The Adjudicating Authority, in the Order-in-Original Nos. 78916/2020 dated 06.01.2021 and 78919/2020 dated 06.01.2021, has inter alia found that the respondent:- Had not complied with the provisions of Domestic laws under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act, 2016 read with the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order (CRO), 2012; Failed to obtain DGFT authorization as required for the import of second hand goods, as required under paragraph 2.31 of the FTP, 2015-20; and Not produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of the provisions of imports, as discussed. (iii) Imposed redemption fine of Rs.3,63,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand only) and Rs.3,98,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand only) on the importer in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and permitted the importer to re-export the subject goods imported vide Bills-of-Entry Nos. 3462333 dated 31.05.2019 and 4053725 dated 13.07.2019 respectively within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. (iv) Imposed penalty of Rs.2,42,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand only) and Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) in respect of Bills-of-Entry Nos. 3462333 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Delhi Photocopiers (supra) as well as the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. S.P. Associates (supra). 8. The ratio of the above case has been followed by me in the case of The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II v. M/s. Kutty Impex in Customs Appeal No. 40390 of 2022 [CESTAT, Chennai], wherein it was held that the First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of the goods in question, and since there is no change in the facts, I am of the view that the same is required to be followed in the case on hand as well. Following the above ratio decidendi, therefore, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
