Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 733 - AT - CustomsImproper importation - Mis-branded sample or not - prohibited imports - imposition of penalties u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - prohibition from import or not - Section 25 of FSS Act, 2006 - HELD THAT:- In the appeals filed by both the appellants, no evidence has been adduced which contradicts the facts that the import consignment were of the goods which did not confirm to the standards laid down under Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006. The test report of the samples drawn from the import consignment has categorically mentioned that the samples are unsafe and mis-branded as per the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the FSS Act, 2006. The argument made by the appellant is not legally sustainable as the Customs Act under Section 112A provides that penalty under the Section should not exceed the value of the goods. Since, the import consignment falls under the category of the prohibited goods and it has also been found that the value declared by the importer is not correct. The seizure value of these goods have been taken as market value since as the goods are of prohibited nature, they are certainly to fetch high margin of profit in the domestic market - The Adjudicating Authority has accordingly taken the market value of such goods as prevailing in the local market for imposition of penalty, the amount of the penalty imposed on both the appellants is in accordance with the provisions of Section 112A (i) of Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, no reason to interfere with the amount of penalty imposed on both the appellants. The deterrent penalty need to be imposed on such importers and their accomplices and thus we do not find any reason to interfere with the amount of penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order-in-original - appeal dismissed.
|