2015 (1) TMI 1209 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of price - Imposition of redemption fine - Re-export of goods - Held that - Although in the case of Central Marketing Agency this Tribunal held that when the re-export of goods is allowed in that case the redemption fine and penalty is not imposable but in the said case the item was transistors and it was found that there was a mis declaration of price. I find that in the case of Bio-Chemical Pharmaceutical Ltd Vs. C.C. Mumbai- 2004 (9) TMI 275 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein a case of import of drug this Tribunal held that in case of re-export of the goods redemption fine was imposed to the extent of 1% of CIF value. Therefore as it is a case of food item and having concern with the health of the society therefore I hold that redemption fine is imposable on the appellant but same is reduced to 1% of the CIF value. In that case although redemption fine and confiscation was upheld but penalty was set aside. Therefore I set aside the imposition of penalty on the appellant. - redemption fine is reduced to 1% of CIF value of the impugned goods and penalty is set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against redemption fine and penalty for re-export of goods.

Analysis:
The appellant imported "Shelled Almonds Kernels" which were found to be damaged and adulterated upon testing by the Central Food Health Laboratory. The adjudicating authority ordered re-export of the goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty, leading to the appellant's appeal. The appellant did not dispute the test report or the re-export order but argued against the imposition of redemption fine and penalty based on a previous Tribunal case. The respondent contended that since the goods were adulterated, redemption fine and penalty were rightly imposed under the Food and Safety Adulteration Act 1954.

The Tribunal considered the arguments and previous cases. While acknowledging the precedent that redemption fine and penalty may not be imposed when re-export is allowed, the Tribunal noted distinctions in the present case involving food items. Referring to a case involving drug import, the Tribunal decided to impose a redemption fine reduced to 1% of the CIF value of the goods due to public health concerns. However, the penalty was set aside based on previous rulings.

In conclusion, the redemption fine was reduced to 1% of the CIF value of the goods, and the penalty was set aside. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.