9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly answering the question whether redemption fine and penalty can be imposed while ordering for re-export of goods.' In the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs Elephanta Oil and Inds. [ 2003 (1) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT ], the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that ' I n this view of the matter, it is apparent that respondent knowing fully well the import policy imported prohibited goods i.e. import of canalised item namely beef tallow and, therefore, the Collector was fully justified in imposing the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.' In the present case, the products imported are perishable and have to meet the standards specified by the Animal Quarantine Authority. The order of the original authority clearly held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3765981 dated 16.12.2022. The Animal Quarantine Authorities denied the clearance of the imported goods and also it was found that the import was in violation of the provisions of paragraph 7(B) of General Notes regarding the Import Policy to the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020. Accordingly, the original authority confiscated the impugned goods and based on the request of the importer allowed them to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the sole purpose of re-export and also imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- on the importer under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal filed against this order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistakes, the re-exports will be permitted without imposition of penalty or with the nominal penalty. In the present case, as the appellant is a bona fide importer having taken all necessary precautions to see that the laws are not violated, the imposition of fine and penalty was totally unwarranted and therefore, is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-II) Vs. Magal Engg. Tech Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (378) ELT 409 (Mad.) Zenith Rubber Plastic Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai 2010 (262) ELT 272 (Tri-Mumbai) Sankar Pandi Vs. Union of India 2002 (141) ELT 635 (Mad.) Union of India Vs. Sankar Pandi (2018 (360) ELT A214 (S.C.) Regal Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs ICD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: 19. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that respondent knowing fully well the import policy imported prohibited goods i.e. import of canalised item namely beef tallow and, therefore, the Collector was fully justified in imposing the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 6.2 In the case of NL Technologies PL Vs Commissioner of Customs Cochin (supra), the importer had imported electronic waste (e-waste), ordinarily means waste electronics/electrical goods or equipment s, which have become unfit for use. E-waste poses danger to environment as it contains toxic materials. Implementation of an environmentally sound e-waste management process is the object of introducing E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s based on the correct specifications, they could not be found fault with and the question of fine and penalty did not arise. The Board Circular No.100/2003-Cus dated 28.11.2003 (reproduced below) clearly states that depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner has the discretion to impose redemption fine and penalty, thus, implying that it is not necessary that in all cases redemption fine and penalties needs to be imposed. Especially in those cases, where the appellant is forced to re-export when the goods imported are found to be not as per their specifications. Circular No. 100/2003-Cus., dated 28-11-2003 F. No. 450/58/2003-Cus. IV Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout any penalty as he deems fit, provided that he is satisfied that the goods have been imported as a result of bona fide mistake and contrary to the importer s instructions. 3. Kindly bring the above instructions to the knowledge of all concerned for strict compliance. 4. Hindi version will follow. 8. In the appellant s own case in similar set of facts for identical goods, this Tribunal held as follows : 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry No.4421415 dt. 15/12/2017 for the clearance of Decalcified Fish scale for Collagen (Fish Protein) under heading 35040099. The Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally under PD Bond and goods were cleared on 29/12/2017 on the basis of provisional clearance/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
