9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal No. KND-CUSTM-000-COM-13-2024-25 dated 08.11.2024 passed by Commissioner of Customs - Kandla. 1.1 The details of impugned demands and imposition of redemption fines and penalties are tabulated below : Sl No Name of Firm Duty confirmed u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act,1962 Penalty imposed u/s 114A of the Customs Act,1962 Redemption Fine u/s 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 1 Cuthbert Oceans LLP (Appeal No C/10704/24) Rs 3,41,28,164 Rs 3,41,28,164/- Rs 44,25,488 2 Cuthbert Winner LLP (Appeal No C/10705/24) Rs 6,05,61,971 Rs 6,05,61,971 Rs 65,68,537/ 1.2 The appellants namely M/s. Cuthbert Oceans LLP and M/s. Cuthbert Winner LLP had imported Black Pepper and Inshell Walnuts [the subject goods] from Afghanistan and USA. The subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrived in India had sailed from Dubai and never from Afghanistan and that these certainly cannot be equated or identified with the consignments which might or might not have been checked by Nangarhar Chamber of Commerce in Afghanistan. The subject goods were, thus, seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Seizure Memos dated 24.04.2023 and 04.05.2023 on a reasonable belief that they were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d), 111(m) and 111(o) read with Notification of Ministry of Commerce and Industry S.O. 2665(E) dated 05.08.2016. 1.4 The appellants had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11758 of 2023 in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking release of the part seized goods on which the Hon'ble High Court by i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the show cause notice registered vide Diary No. APB20240003092C202400039 dated 15.10.2024,which could not be listed due to certain objections which could not be rectified since there were Deepawali Holidays and the Hon'ble Court did not function, as informed to the appellant by its Counsel vide e-mail dated 03.11.2024. The said writ petition was likely to be listed for hearing in the next week &also requested for the certain documents as mentioned in relation to verification of Country of Origin by FTA Cell. Thereafter the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by the said impugned order the appellants filed the present appeals. 2. Shri Manish Pushkarna, Learned Counsel along with Shri Tarun Chawla and Shri Jitin Singhal, Advocates app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t The impugned order has been passed with pre-determined bias and prejudice against the appellants and in haste. Reference may be had to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act; which prescribes two time limits for determining the duty amount, viz., 06 months or 01 year, as the case may be. In the present case, 01 year was at the disposal of the learned Adjudicating Authority to complete the adjudication which would have expired on 22.04.2025 (show cause notice was issued on 23.04.2024) but the impugned order has been passed in haste on 08.11.2024 in violation of principles of natural justice. A Corrigendum has also been issued on 09.09.2024 in the present case inserting certain provisions and notifications and proposal to impose penalty on M/s Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignored the vital facts that the genuineness of the certificate of country of origins has been verified by the FTA Cell, which had verified the Country of Origin certificate as genuine. We find force in the submission of the appellant in this regard that the documents related to verification of certificate of country of origin and related documents needs to be supplied to the appellants and failing which the adjudicating authority has grossly violated the principles of natural justice. 4.1 We find that the charge of minimum import price below Rs. 500 is also relevant to the issue of country of origin, therefore, unless until issue of country of origin is established, the charge of minimum import price is also premature . We also observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or whose presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the court considers unreasonable; or (b) when the person who made the statement is examined as a witness in the case before the court and the court is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, (2) apply in relation to any proceeding under this Act, other than a proceeding before a court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a court.] 4.2 From the above Section 138B , it is mandator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
