9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had already subjected the imported consignments of Black Pepper to test and had sent it for laboratory to comply with the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Since the goods have been reexported back, the procedural irregularities in complying with the requirements of the rules under the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995, cannot be pressed against the petitioner as the procedures are handmaids of justice and not mistress of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Aurya Chambers of Commerce [1986 (4) TMI 363 - SUPREME COURT]. Conclusion - Since the goods having been exported without being cleared, the petitioner cannot be denied the substantial benefits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the petitioner, the petitioner was not allowed to clear the goods on which, the petitioner had paid duty. Under these circumstances, an Order was also came to be passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Group-I) in Order-in-Original No. 60248 of 2017 on 11.12.2017 wherein it was ordered as follows:- i. I order for confiscation of the goods, declared as Black Pepper with an Assessable Value of Rs. 99,49,187/- under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. However, I give option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of reexport only. ii. I impose penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995. 8. It is submitted that since the petitioner had filed a fresh shipping bill, the goods were not examined and therefore it may not be proper to allow the management of the free shipping bill to drawback shipping bill to avail the benefit of duty drawback. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent. 10. The facts are not in dispute. The imported goods were not allowed to be taken outside the customs area and therefore the question of the imported consignments being re-examined once again before the reexport would have been merely a procedural formality as the Customs Department had alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
