9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods have been abandoned. In such situation, the goods are taken into possession by the Central Government and disposed of in accordance with law. The goods can be taken into possession only if confiscated. The Adjudicating Authority has ordered for confiscation only to facilitate the custody of goods to the Central Government. The Commissioner (Appeals) has misconceived the provisions under Customs Act, 1962, that as there is confiscation of goods, redemption fine has to be imposed. When the appellant has abandoned the goods, there is no requirement to give option to redeem the goods. When the goods are not being redeemed and abandoned, the goods have to taken custody by the Central Government. In such situation of confiscation, imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty that has been debited and applicable to Aluminium Alloy Ingots. It is made clear that as the appellant has not contested the penalty, the same is not disturbed. The appeal is allowed in above terms with consequential reliefs, if any, as per law. - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Appellant : Mr. S. Krishnanandh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. M. Selvakumar, Authorised Representative ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant placed order for import of Aluminium Alloy Ingots and filed Bills of Entry declaring the goods as Aluminium Alloy Ingots . On examination by the Dock Officers, it was found that the consignment contained Stone Chips and not Aluminium Alloy Ingots. The appellant stated that as per Letter dated 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited the amount of duty as applicable to the Stone Chips and not of the duty of Aluminium Alloy Ingots. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2.1 The Ld. counsel Mr. S. Krishnanandh appeared and argued for the appellant. The findings of the Adjudicating Authority in Paragraphs 13 and 14 was adverted to by the Ld. counsel to submit that there is a clear finding by the Adjudicating Authority that there is no offence committed by the importer and that redemption fine is not imposable. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have imposed redemption fine in an appeal filed by the appellant. An appellant cannot be put into a worse situation than that of the earlier order on which the appeal has been filed. The decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) has therefore imposed redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is legal and proper. The appellant has already been given a relief to the extent of re-credit of the duty applicable to the Stone Chips and the amount is to be quantified. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The facts narrated above bring out that the shipment did not contain the goods for which the appellant had placed the order to the foreign supplier. For this reason, the appellant had filed Letter before the Adjudicating Authority to permit them to abandon the goods as provided under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed penalty of Rs.30,000/-, there is no finding rendered as to the offence committed by the importer. Instead, it has been categorically stated in Paragraph 14 that no offence is committed by the importer. The appellant has paid the penalty and does not contest the same. So, the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that since goods have been confiscated and penalty imposed, redemption fine has to be imposed is erroneous. Further, there is no appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Adjudicating Authority who refrained from imposing redemption fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have imposed redemption fine in an appeal filed by the importer. In the case of Jaswal Neco Ltd. (supra) the Hon ble Apex Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hips. The appellant having not imported Aluminium Alloy Ingots is not liable to pay such duty. The appellant had placed order for Aluminium Alloy Ingots and they have not received the goods. However, the duty was debited in the Scrips. The appellant is therefore eligible for re-credit of duty that in the Advance Authorisation Scrips. 8. The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the redemption fine and also setting aside the order directing re-credit of duty applicable to Stone Chips. The appellant is eligible for re-credit of duty that has been debited and applicable to Aluminium Alloy Ingots. It is made clear that as the appellant has not contested the penalty, the same is not disturbed. The appeal is allowed in above t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
