9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorities. Referring to the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Siemens Limited vs. Collector of Customs 1999 (8) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT in support of their contention that redemption find and duty were not payable as the imported goods were ordered to be re-exported, they plead for quashing of the impugned order. It is evident from the show cause notice, that it carries no reference to the test report dated 02.04.2014 and therefore the Order in Original placing reliance on the said test report (samples of which were alleged to be drawn at the back of the assessee), to arrive at the impugned findings, is clearly beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Further, the imported goods have been lying all along, in the custody of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /15 dated 11th March, 2015 whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has passed the following order: (1) I order for absolute confiscation of the said 07.10.2013 by M/s Overseas Enterprise valued at Rs. 80,63,131/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Sixty three thousand one hundred thirty one only) (transaction value) u/s 111(b) and 111 (d) of the Customs Act 1962. However, I give an option to the rightful owner to re-export the same within fifteen days from the date of communication of the order on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 12,09,470/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Nine thousand four hundred seventy) only under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 within 15 days of receipt of this order failing of which the said consignment would be destroyed. (2) I impose p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as the importer was not aware of the price revision permitting import of Beetle Nuts of and above rupees 110/- kg. CIF value and as their import price was much less, a dispute regarding valuation of imported goods emanated. It is their case that the Department did not release their goods in time, and a show cause notice was issued to them on 18th July 2014 on the dispute declared value requiring them inter alia to Show Cause as to why the revised tariff value should not be applied, and that it did not raise any dispute regarding non-conforming with the specifications referred to under CFL test report dated 3rd December, 2013. 3. Pending adjudication of the show cause notice, the appellant and several other importers of Beetle Nuts had fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at reference has been made to the redrawn samples (at the back of the Appellant) which upon testing by the Department, obtained a Certificate of Analysis dated 2nd April, 2014 issued by the Referral Laboratory, Mysore, certifying that the goods did not conform to the standards laid down for Dry Fruits and Nuts under the FSSAI Regulations. It is also their case that the said certificate was not supplied to them till the time of filing of the Appeal. Vide their letter dated 6th August, 2014, addressed to the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Customs House, Kolkata they had conveyed to the department that the goods be released to them upon payment of differential duty of Customs. 6. Finally, vide their letter dated 19th March, 2015 they sought p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice to impute malafides on the part of the importer. They have even offered to accept the Tariff valuation prescribed and pay the differential duty as was leviable on the goods. 10. It is evident from the show cause notice, that it carries no reference to the test report dated 02.04.2014 and therefore the Order in Original placing reliance on the said test report (samples of which were alleged to be drawn at the back of the assessee), to arrive at the impugned findings, is clearly beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Further, the imported goods have been lying all along, in the custody of the Department, notably for several months, without proper storage conditions and that the initial test reports by the laboratory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atory at Mysore, cannot be cited to support the contumacious conduct of the appellants. No motives can be attributed to the Appellants under the circumstances. 11. In view of our findings aforesaid, the Appellants are not liable to any penal consequences, even though the goods may have become unfit for human consumption. The two test reports when read together clearly indicate that at the time of import, there was no finding about the imported betel nuts being unsuitable for human consumption. The fact that the goods are not re-exported and are now required to be destroyed and so ordered as per due process of law by the authorities, hence no redemptions fine is imposable thereon. The Appellant is also not liable for any penalty for reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
