Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he case when the offending goods were unfit for human consumption under the PFA Rules, 1955 how such goods were allowed to be re-exported without having regard to the hazardous character thereof. This is not a case to be leniently considered at all when adulteration is harmful to the human consumption. Therefore, re-export ought not have been allowed. Offending goods were hazardous in nature for human life, there is no scope to hold that the imports were stray import. Accordingly quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed in adjudication should not be interfered. Whatever the quantum of import may be, when the goods become offending goods that contravenes the provisions of law of Customs and causes serious prejudice to public interes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 207 where learned Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant had imported 226800 kgs. of goods declaring that to be Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils (Vanaspati Ghee) from Nartha Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Sri Lanka in terms of Bill of Entry No. 1203 dated 11.7.2007 availing exemption under notification 02/2007-Cus dated 5.1.2007. Upon testing the sample of the said goods, customs authorities found that the goods imported under batch No. 15 18 of the import were not edible oil and did not conform to the standard of vanaspati laid down under PFA Rules, 1955. Non-edibility and unfit character of that batch of oil for human consumption remained undisputed upon testing thereof in terms of CFL test report Nos. 383/371/07-CFL/604 dated 2.8.2007 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0 remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh to examine the question as to whether consignment in question were stray import warranting imposition of fine and penalty or not. 8. In absence of the appellant we heard the matter extensively with the assistance of Revenue and also perused the grounds of appeal as well as material on record thoroughly. We have examined both the adjudication orders. 9. In adjudication order covered by appeal No. C/736/07 it is an uncontroverted fact that 3008 tins of non-edible vegetable oil came to India and were attempted to be cleared by the appellant. Only because of Customs intervention, non-edibility nature of above quantity of vegetable oil could be discovered. Had that not b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ort was allowed. Learned Adjudicating Authority has allowed the re-export without imposing redemption fine while in appeal case No. C/192/08 finding mis-declaration, re-export was allowed imposing redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. 13. In appeal No. C/192/08, 323.55 M.T. of Bakery Shortening imported were not fit for human consumption as was found on testing and that remained uncontroverted and were not in conformity with A-19 of Appendix B of PFA Rules, 1955. 14. When the imports of both the goods were deliberately imported and mis-declaration was made for unjust enrichment at the cost of exchequer, it cannot be said that the imports were bonafide. It is also surprising to note that in both the case when the offending goods were unfit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nterest under Section 11(u) read with Section 11(k) of customs Act, 1962 which deals with offence relating to human life. Therefore both appeals should be dismissed. 16. So far as reduction of redemption fine and penalty is concerned, there is no formula prescribed or laid down for imposition of fine and penalty. In the case of CC Mumbai Vs. Mansi Impex 2011 (270) ELT 631(S.C) in Para 17, Hon ble Supreme Court has criticized the arbitrary action of the Tribunal for its whim to reduce redemption fine and penalty mechanically following its order in other cases. In the case of C.C. (Import) vs. Tolman Marble Industries, reported in 2011 (264) ELT 3 (SC) it was held by Apex Court that a standard formula cannot be laid down for imposition of r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates