9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, whereby the Respondent imposed penalties of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) on Shri Rajesh Lihala and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) on Shri Vinay Singh, Managing Director of the Company under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") on the premise that both the Appellant were responsible for conduct of M/s. Fourcee Infrastructure Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the said Company") and being on Senior post were connected with the policy decisions of the said Company. It was held that the Company was required to re-export containers which were imported without payment of duty under Notification No. 104/94-Cus dated 16.03.1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing them to clear in domestic market with payment of duty and interest. The concerned Customs Authority granted the permission and therefore, the said Company filed Bills of Entry on 12.06.2-13 for 100 containers and 19.07.2013 for 63 containers declaring value and duty payable on such containers. Due to financial constraints, the Company could not deposit the duty as declared in the Bills of Entries. The Customs Department vide letters dated 09.10.2013, 14.10.2013 and 23.12.2013 reminded the said Company for payment of Customs Duty. As the Company could not deposit the duty, the said Containers were seized on 26.03.2014 and 05.09.2014 and issued the Show Cause Notices for demanding of the duty and confiscation of the goods. It is submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer waives any of the conditions, goods cannot be confiscated under Section 111(o). In the present case, the Customs Department waived conditions for re-export of the goods and allowed to clear in domestic market with payment of duty. Since the proper officer granted the permission to the said company for clearance of the goods with payment of duty, it cannot be said that the imported goods were liable for confiscation. II. ACTION OF THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT FOR SEIZURE OF GOODS WERE PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS IS PREMATURE STAGE 6. The Customs Department initiated action for seizure of the goods even before expiry of 6 months as stipulated under the Notification No. 104/94-Cus dated 16.03.1994. It is submitted that the said Company imported 63 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D LIMIT WOULD BE LIABLE ONLY FOR DEMAND OF DUTY AND INTEREST BUT DOES NOT ATTRACT CONFISCATION OR PENALTY : 8. Notification No.104/94-Cus dated 16.03.1994 provides that duty free containers imported under the Notification are required to be re-exported within a period of 6 months from the date of import or such extended time limit as granted by the Assistant Commissioner. First proviso to the Notification provides that failure to re-export of the goods within the time limit, the importer is required to pay the duty. The Respondent imposed penalty upon the Appellants only on the premise that the goods were not re-exported within a period of 6 months. As the Notification only demands for duty on failure to re-export of the containers, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure on part of the Company for not having proper checks and balance regarding the containers which were required to be re-exported. Further, the Company faced acute financial hardship due to global recession. Immediately after seizure of containers, the Company requested the Customs Department to allow them to re-export of the goods. The Department confiscated the goods only on the premise of the Company failed to re-export the goods within a period of 6 months. In the following decisions it is held that penalty ought not to have been imposed for contravention of the condition of the Notification in a case, there is no intention to evade customs duty: (i) Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Ex. Cus. (A), Kandla - 2014 (314) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that in the impugned order, the Learned Adjudicating Authority has given one sided story of the department however, the appellant have made a detailed defense submission, as mentioned above on the fact as well as on the legal issue but from the perusal of the impugned order particularly with regard to imposition of penalties on the present appellants no discussion and finding was given. Therefore, in our considered view, in the matter related to imposition penalty on the present appellants the Adjudicating authority must reconsider the matter carefully considering the submission made by the appellant and thereafter pass a speaking and reasoned order. 5. Therefore, we s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
