9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also set aside the imposition of redemption fine, but still retained the penalty imposed u/s 112(a) of the Act. Further, once the confiscation is set aside, then the question of imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Act does not arise. Here, it is pertinent to refer to Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, there was no malafide intention to evade duty on the part of the appellant and hence, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable in view of the various decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant; particularly the decision of this Tribunal in the case of John Deere India Pvt Ltd.[ 2017 (12) TMI 292 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] , wherein it has been held that when the issue relates to interpretation then the goods are not liable to confiscation and no redemption fine is imposable on the said goods and consequently no penalty is imposable on the appellant. The appeals were allowed, and both impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief as per law. - HON BLE SHRI S. S. GARG , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) For the Appellant : Shri Naveen Bindal , Advocate For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 38/2015-2020 dated 05.02.2016 S.O. (E): In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of FT (D R) Act, 1992 read with paragraph 1.02 and 2.01 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 as amended from time to time, the Central Government hereby amends the Import Policy Conditions against 173 HS Codes under Chapter 72 of ITC (HS), 2012- Schedule-I (Import Policy) as per the Annex subject to the following conditions: a) Imports under Advance Authorisation Scheme are exempted from Minimum Import Price (MIP) under this Notification, b) MIP is also exempted for all API grade steel conforming to X-52 and higher API grades for manufacturing pipes used for pipeline transportation systems in the petroleum and natural gas industries, and c) MIP conditions laid down in this Notification are valid for six months from the date of the notification or until further orders, whichever is earlier. 2. Further, imports/shipments under Letter of Credit already entered into before the date of this notification shall be exempted from the Minimum Import Price condition subject to Para 1.05(b) of Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020. 3. Effect of this Notification: Minimum Import Price (MIP) is int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside, as the same have been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law; and binding judicial precedents. 4.2 He further submits that in the present case, the goods have been held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act which states that the goods shall be liable to confiscation if such goods are imported or attempted to be imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. The relevant portion of the said Section is reproduced herein below: Section 111 - Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation: (a) ***** (b) ***** (c) ***** (d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. 4.3 He further submits that the appellant had imported 'pre- painted steel coils (non-alloys)' under Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ohibition. He also submits that it was a simple case of re-assessment where seizure, confiscation and consequent fine and penalty were not warranted. 4.6 In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relies on the following decisions: Oriental Containers Ltd vs. UOI - 2003 (157) ELT 503 (Bom.) Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai vs. Surbhit Impex Pvt Ltd - 2012 (286) ELT 500 (Bom.) A.R. Trading Company vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2020 (372) ELT 388 (Tri. Bang.) Agarwal Industrial Corporation Ltd vs. CC, Mangalore - 2020 (373) ELT 280 (Tri. Bang.) Goyal Metal Industries Pvt Ltd vs. CC (Import), Chennai - 2018 (359) ELT 236 (Tri. Chennai) John Deere India Pvt Ltd vs. CC (Preventive), Amritsar - 2018 (363) ELT 509 (Tri. Chan.) Pathange And Company vs. CC, Hyderabad 2020-TIOL-73-CESTAT-HYD (Final Order No. 31112/2019 dt. 20.11.2019) 5.1 On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue also filed written submissions alongwith case-laws relied upon by him. He reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that importer s actions were in contravention of the policy conditions rendering the imported goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also set aside the imposition of redemption fine, but still retained the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act. 8. Further, I find that once the confiscation is set aside, then the question of imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act does not arise. Here, it is pertinent to refer to Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, which is reproduced herein below: Section 112 Penalty for importer importation of goods , etc. Any person , - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) ****** On perusal of the above said provision, I find that penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act can be imposed for such an act which would render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111; and in the present case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation, hence the imposition of penalty is bad in law. 9. Further, I find that in the present case, there was no malafide intention to evade duty on the part of the appellant and hence, the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
