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

2023 (7) TMI 779

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ons to argue that the goods have been subjected to 100% inspection and that the non-compliance of the requirement of production of PSI certificate would be only a procedural infraction and would not tantamount to improper import of goods - it is noted that after inspection of the goods, there is no prohibited goods or banned substances. The original authority has imposed redemption fine of Rs.10,42,820/- and penalty of Rs.4,46,922/- which is on the higher side. The decisions relied by the Ld. Counsel for appellant show that courts have been lenient to set aside the redemption fine and penalties. In the decision relied by the Ld. A.R the redemption fine and penalty has been reduced. Taking into consideration that the goods have been subje .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Vol.II). The consignment was therefore subjected to 100% examination. The examination did not reveal any remnants of arms, ammunition or banned substances. The goods were provisionally released. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to confiscate the goods under section 111 (d) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 (8) of Foreign Trade (Development Regulations) Act, 1992 and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority held that the goods are liable for confiscation. As the goods had been provisionally released under bond redemption fine of Rs.10,42,820/- under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 was imposed and ordered for enforcement of the bond, if necessary. A penalty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itted that since the appellant has produced a certificate and even after examination of the goods, there is no report of hazardous goods contained in the consignment, the imposition of such huge redemption fine and penalty is unreasonable and unfounded. 4. The decision in the case of CC Vs Senor Metals Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (236) ELT 445 (Guj.) was relied to argue that non-compliance of producing the pre-shipment certificate may entail the importer to undergo 100% inspection of the entire consignment. The same cannot be considered as improper import of goods. The order of the Tribunal setting aside, the confiscation and penalty was upheld by the Hon ble High Court. 5. In the case of Electrosteel Castings Vs CC (Port) Kolkatta 2009 ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nned goods, the Tribunal set aside the redemption fine and penalties. 9. In the case of NGA Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Chennai - 2010 (262) ELT 578 (Tri.-Chennai), the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat (supra) to hold that non-compliance with the fulfilment of conditions such as production of Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate may entail an importer to undergo 100% inspection of the entire consignment and that it would not tantamount to improper import of goods as per Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. Ld. Counsel adverted to an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No.584/2013 dated 04.04.2013 wherein on the same set of facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... jected to 100% inspection and that the non-compliance of the requirement of production of PSI certificate would be only a procedural infraction and would not tantamount to improper import of goods. We take note of the fact that after inspection of the goods, there is no prohibited goods or banned substances. The original authority has imposed redemption fine of Rs.10,42,820/- and penalty of Rs.4,46,922/- which, in our view, is on the higher side. The decisions relied by the Ld. Counsel for appellant show that courts have been lenient to set aside the redemption fine and penalties. In the decision relied by the Ld. A.R the redemption fine and penalty has been reduced. Taking into consideration that the goods have been subjected to 100% e .....

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