9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, the valuation adopted by Revenue is set aside and the same reduced to purchase price of Rs.16,62,083 plus 15% for trading profit and/or rounded off to Rs.19,00,000/-. It is observed that as a long time has passed since the date of seizure and confiscation, the goods have deteriorated in value and are no longer available for redemption. Taking notice that Appellant has already suffered loss due to confiscation of the medicines, the penalty imposed on the Appellant Mr. K. Raghavendra Reddy, reduced from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.50,000/- under Sec 114(i) of the Customs Act - appeal allowed in part. - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY (JUDICIAL) AND MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri K. Raghavendra Reddy, the Appellant. Shri P. Amaresh, AR for the Respondent. ORDER The Appellant is in Appeal against the Order of confiscation of medicines which were being carried while travelling out of India, and further imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Sec 114 (i) of the Act. 2. The brief facts are that the Appellant is a partner in M/s Hira Enterprises which is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of medicines, duly licensed by the Drug Control Authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the medicines and deliver the same in person. The sale proceeds were mostly in cash and were brought to India. 4. On 05.10.2016, one Mr. Ambala Sridhar Reddy was about to depart to Vietnam. He was intercepted by the DRI Officers and upon enquiry, he informed that he is carrying certain medicines to Vietnam, which are in his checked-in baggage. The checked-in baggage was retrieved from the baggage make up area and the same was opened and checked. It appeared to Revenue that he was carrying medicines in commercial quantity. As per the MRP printed on the baggage, the value was worked out at Rs.53,45,000/-. On being questioned, Mr. A.S. Reddy stated that he does not have drug license to export the medicine out of India and also stated that he is working with M/s Haeal Pharma and was carrying medicines for delivery in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also stated that he has carried medicines in similar fashion in some earlier trips, as per instructions of the Appellant - Mr. K. Raghavendra Reddy, who is the owner of M/s Haeal Pharma. He further stated that he is not aware of drug license and IEC code etc. The officers detained the medicines under Panchnama and also recovered the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icines in tablet form through Mumbai and Delhi to other countries, they were accordingly, exporting and receiving sale proceeds. At times, they have used fictitious prescriptions and exported the medicines. Further, admitted that he had purchased medicines in India and given to his employee Mr. A.S. Reddy for carrying and delivering to Mr. Chang in Vietnam. 6. Further, the Appellant vide letter dated 13.10.2016 furnished summary of all purchases and sales of business for the period April 2015 to 10.10.2016 and one set of export documents for investigation, evidencing receipt of export proceeds into their bank account. The Appellant also received BRC by the bank on receipt of remittance from abroad. Whatever medicines they export by carrying the same in person, the same are declared in their accounts as local sales. 7. It appeared to Revenue that the Appellant have admitted to export of medicines by carrying in his baggage in commercial quantity, without having valid prescription/permission, nor was in possession of valid permission at the time of interception. Further, it appeared that Sec 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act prohibits sale or distribution of drugs in violation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rting medicines through courier/ Speed Post and had been receiving remittances in their bank account in convertible foreign exchange. The Appellant had prayed for setting aside the Order of absolute confiscation and had prayed for redemption of the same upon liberal terms. It is also urged that Revenue erred in valuing goods at MRP whereas the purchase value as evidenced by the purchase invoices produced was only Rs.16,62,083/-, which is not disputed. The purchase invoices contains details of name of medicine, name of manufacturer, batch number, etc. As the medicines attempted to be exported are not prohibited there is only violation of procedure, not calling for absolute confiscation. There is also no malafide intention and further, admittedly, Appellant did not claim any export benefits under any scheme in spite of having exported medicines worth crores, in the past. And also there is no case made out of spurious drugs. The Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to dismiss the Appeals agreeing with the Order of adjudication. 10. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. The Appellant appeared in person and have pleaded his case. He reiterates the grounds of Appeal tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
