9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, for the above violation penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Act. Validity of permission issued in respect of Wada Unit, for the Panipat Unit we find that the concerned Ministry has clarified contrary to the said submission - No error in the impugned orders as the concerned Ministry has in respect of the same consignment has clarified contrary to the stand taken by the appellant in this regard that the permission granted in respect of Wada unit in Maharashtra would be valid for the imports to be made for consumption in Panipat Unit in Haryana. The impugned order has taken note of the above clarification issued by the administrative ministry. While upholding the order in relation to confiscation of the impugned goods and the penalty imposed, we take note of the facts that total value of the goods was Rs.22 lakhs for which redemption fine of Rs.6 lakhs and penalty of Rs.4 lakhs has been imposed. These seem to be on higher side. We reduce the redemption find imposed to Rs.3 lakhs and penalty imposed to Rs.2 lakhs. - MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri R.P. Jind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .7 Matter was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner, vide his order in original dated 07.02.2018 he imposed redemption fine of Rs.6 Lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act and penalty of Rs.4 Lakhs under Rule 112(a) on the appellant. 2.8 Aggrieved appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of Original Authority. Aggrieved appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 We have heard Shri R.P. Jindal, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Manish Raj, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned Counsel submits that- There is a bonafide error committed by them to the extent of permission which is in respect of Wada unit and not in respect of Panipat unit. The said permission would be valid for Panipat Unit also as the importer/exporter provides materials to all 5 units from which they are producing. In any case redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant are too harsh for such technical offences. 3.3 Learned Authorized Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the orders of the lower authorities. 4.1 We have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by M/o Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide O.M. No.5-22/2010-HSMD dated 08.04.2015 and such diversion of restricted imported goods is nowhere permitted in MOEF's above referred Office Memorandum. 5.3 I further find that the importer's contention that both, Wada and Panipat plants are granted NOC for the same product is not sustainable as far as diversion of goods is concerned as the MOEF permission for import of restricted goods is plant specific and pollution level in the area where plant is located is one of the factors for granting the same. 5.4 I further observe that MOEF O.M. No.5-22/2010-HSMD dated 03.03.2016 granting permission to importer's 4 plants located in Haryana, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu and West Bengal, speaks nothing about diversion of the goods. Thus, the importer's claim is not correct that they have obtained MOEF O.M. dated 03.03.2016 covering their 4 plants such that material can be imported and diverted to any of the branches against NOC issued to one particular branch. 5.5 I further find that the importer has failed to produced any permission/ document as claimed that in order to facilitate them, MOEF has been issuing them permissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on P.D.Bond, though the same were not validly imported and required to be re-exported at the cost of the importer. At the time of clearance, the importer was aware that he did not have valid documents for import, therefore, he executed P.D.Bond and assured to produce valid paper within prescribed time limit but he, not only failed to do so but also started resorting to pleas having no substance and truth in them, this clearly, is breach of trust for which he has appropriately been fined. I place reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in the case of M/s. Weston Components Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2000(115) ELT 278 (S.C.). 6.2 As the import of goods was without valid MOEF permission and DGFT authorization, the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(0) of the Act and the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Act are also attracted. The penalty can be imposed not only when the goods are available for confiscation but also when the goods are liable to confiscation. Section 112 (a) lays down that any person 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
