TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are also liable to be set aside, appeal is allowed with consequential relief - E/631/2008 - 479/2010, - Dated:- 4-2-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. Shri M. Chandrasekharan, Sr. Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M. Vivekanandan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. M/s. Allseas Marine Contractors S.A., Secunderabad (AMC) filed Bill of Entry No. 116633 dated 22-10-2007 for clearing a consignment of Lithium Batteries claiming exemption under Sl. No. 217 of the Notification No. 21/2002 Cus., dated 1-3-2002 as amended. This entry exempted from the whole of customs and additional duties, goods specified in List 12 appended to that notification required in connection with petrol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, 1962 (the Act) and themselves liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Act. After due process of law, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order demanding of Rs. 5,27,77,105/- towards Customs duty on the goods imported under cover of Bill of Entry No. 116633 dated 22-10-2007 and not covered by an essentiality certificate produced at the time of importation of the goods. She confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 16,90,60,478/- under Section 111(l), (m) (o) of the Act with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 20 lakhs (the goods had already been released provisionally under bond). She imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on AMC under Section 112(a) of the Act. An amount of Rs. 5,27,77,105/- already paid was appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaration of description, quantity and value of the goods imported due to some confusion at load port and communication gap between the load port and the local agent of the importer. I also find that the violation of condition of the notification is a consequence of the aforesaid mistake. She found that the imported goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111 (l), (m) (o) of the Act and the importers liable for penalty. She was inclined to take a lenient view in the circumstances as regards the penal liability of the importers. 5.1 We observe that the appellants have placed on record the requisite essentiality certificate for import of the goods under production sharing contract under NELP between the Government and, M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption clause therein may be construed liberally. An eligibility criteria, therefore, deserves a strict construction, although construction of a condition thereof may be given a liberal meaning. The Apex Court had made these observations on the condition of production of essentiality certificate from Director General of Hydro Carbon in a similar exemption notification. In the light of these observations of the Apex Court, we hold that the impugned goods are eligible for the exemption claimed as they satisfied eligibility criteria though the requisite essentiality certificate was produced belatedly. 5.2 In Jagson International Ltd. v. CC, Chennai, reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 553 (Tri.-Del.) relied on by the appellants, this Tribunal he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rig was removed on 9-10-1993. 6. We find that as per this settled legal position, production of essentiality certificate which established the purpose for which the impugned goods had been imported and which purpose had not been disputed at any point of time when the appellants cleared the goods, the benefit of notification should be extended to the appellant. The Commissioner also held that the failure of the appellant to fulfil the conditions of the Notification was owing to errors committed by its employees at load port and its local agents. We hold that the impugned goods are entitled to the benefit under entry Sl. No. 217 of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Accordingly, we vacate the impugned demand arising on account of denial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the appellant had agreed that the imported fabric was texturized cannot be approved as if the result of mis-reading of the relevant paragraph of the letter dated 19-5-2005 which reads as follows : Though we do not agree with the findings of the CRCL, however, in order to avoid demurrage, detention and other incidental costs and in the best interest of all concerned agree to clear the consignment under proposed classification. Kindly appreciate that the consignment had arrived some time in December, 2004 and is lying at the port incurring demurrage and other costs. It is evident from a bare reading that the appellant had made no such admission and it was only interested in getting the goods released as soon as possible to avoid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
