TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violation on the part of the appellant to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - redemption fine and penalty not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/197/2009 - A/224/2010-WZB/C-IV/SMB - Dated:- 11-5-2010 - Shri Ashok Jindal, J Ms. Sushma Nagraj with Anusha Jegadeesh, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri B.P. Pareira, JDR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant has filed this appeal against the confirmation of redemption fine and penalty on them. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant has imported goods declared as Natural Rubber SVR 10 under DEEC Scheme. The bill of entry was assessed as per declared description and in the examination order it was endorsed to the Docks staff to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore foreign supplier who also admitted the mistake and ask the appellant to re-export the same. In these circumstances, redemption fine and penalty is not imposable. To support their contention, she placed reliance on M/s. Siemens Ltd. reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C.) = AIR 2000 S.C. 3443 wherein the Hon ble apex court has held that in the case of re-export of the goods, the redemption fine is not imposable. 4. He further relied on HCL Hewlett Packard Ltd. reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 367 (Tri.-Del.) wherein this Tribunal has held that in the case of re-export of goods, the adjudicating authority is not empowered to impose any redemption fine. She also placed reliance on Akbar Badrudin Jiwani reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced reliance on Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. M.R. Exports -2006 (197) E.L.T. 523 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein this Tribunal has held that the restriction on export of goods amounts to prohibition when conditions stipulated for export of goods not fulfilled. Redemption fine and penalty are imposable, mens rea not a factor. He further submitted that in this case the appellant as misdeclared the goods as Natural Rubber SVR-10. On examination it was found that not upto BIS specification . Hence, impugned order be upheld. 6. Heard both sides. 7. On careful consideration I find that it is a case where the appellant made a purchase order for import of Natural Rubber SVR-10 against the advance licence under DEEC Scheme to import of the raw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption fine is not leviable. In the case of Akbar Badrudin Jiwani apex court has clearly held the criteria for imposition of penalty, in such event in the case of Pratibha Processors reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) has held that penalty is ordinarily levied for some contumacious conduct or for a deliberate violation of the provisions of the particular statute. In this case, I find that the conduct of the appellant as such that the appellant has taken due precaution for importation of goods, there is no deliberate violation on the part of the appellant to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. In that situation, the penalty on the appellant is also not sustainable. Following the ratio of the case laws cited by the learned Advocate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
