TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of para 20 of the Order-in-Original dated 08.07.2014. It is observed that various issues raised by the appellants in their grounds of present appeals, as well as during the course of hearing, have not been deliberated upon by the Adjudicating authority as these issues on merits were not raised before him. In the interest of justice we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to the Adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh after taking on record the submissions made by the appellants on merits in these proceedings. Accordingly Order-in-Original dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Adjudicating authority is set aside and case is remanded back to him to decide the same in denovo proceedings - Matter remanded back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) and Ms.Nupur Jalan (Advocate) appeared respectively for M/s.Agri Trade India Services, M/s.Ravi Shipping Agencies and M/s.Sohom Shipping Pvt.Ltd.. Shri A.K.Das appearing for M/s.Agri Trade India Services (P) Ltd. argued that appellant imported 10,000 MT of Canadian Whole Yellow Peas through vessel MV Dubai Crown to Kolkata Port. The commodity was fully exempt vide Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012. The importer filed Bill of Entry No.5519361 dated 17.05.2014 and also filed Overside Discharge Guarantee (ODG) bearing number 56(OS) on 16.05.2014. The ODG contained the names of six barges, namely, Sohom-I, Sohom-II, SohomIII, Srijoy-I, Joy Basudeb and JITF Shambhavi. The ODG was accepted/approved by Customs on 16.05.2014 at late h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the stevedore went to Customs House for regularizing the issue, like listing of the said two barges. By 12.00 hrs on 19th May 2014, the application for inclusion of the said two barges viz. MV Jyaestharaj and MV Pashyanti in the overside Discharge Guarantee was submitted and the Assistant Commissioner (Prev.) duly endorsed the same for enlistment. The concerned file of the Custom House would reveal this fact. 2.5 That these two barges carrying about 4460 MT of the said cargo followed the proper route and reached the final destination i.e. Shalimar Point near the lock gate of KP Dock. The Customs Officers intercepted these barges there and detained them under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the cargo was later subjected to 100% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Corut in the case of cce V. Dhiren Chemical Industries [2002 (139) ELT 3(SC)], wherein it has been held that where the raw material is not liable to excise duty or such duty is nil, no excise duty is, as the matter of fact, paid upon it and such raw material would not be considered as the one on which appropriate duty has been paid. So, the words chargeable to duty occurring in Section 2(14) ibid would mean those goods on which some amount of duty in real terms would have to be paid and would not include any goods which are fully exempt unconditionally from payment of duty. They are also not notified as prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the impugned goods, being neither dutiable nor prohibited, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other law and order situation as apprehended/highlighted in the Order-in-Original, as the Police was informed beforehand and the barges and the goods really did not have anything objectionable found on 100% examination by Customs of the same. The substantive provisions of law not having been violated, there being no scope of any threat to the revenue and there being no threat to any law and order situation, the confiscation of the goods and the barges, imposition of redemption fine on the same and imposition of penalty are totally uncalled for, unjustified, arbitrary, ultra vires and totally unsustainable. 2.12 That the above submissions find support from the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaiji vs. Gangabai [2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority during which Advocates of the appellants pleaded guilty and requested leniency. 5. Heard both sides to each appeal and perused the case law. It is observed from the case records and the record of the personal hearing held before the Adjudicating authority that all the three representatives appearing for the present appellants pleaded guilty during adjudication proceedings and requested leniency. This factual aspects have also been recorded by the Adjudicating authority towards the end of para 20 of the Order-in-Original dated 08.07.2014. It is observed that various issues raised by the appellants in their grounds of present appeals, as well as during the course of hearing, have not been deliberated upon by the Adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
