TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not being carried out then it would be fully open to the authority to ask the person who have availed of the benefit of exemption to pay the duty payable in respect of the equipments which have been imported without payment of customs duty. As regards redemption fine - Held that: - the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Fortis Hospital [2015 (4) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT], has held that on a plain reading of the said provision, we are of the view that such a provision would not apply in case where option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation is not exercised by the importer. Trigger point is the exercise of a positive option to pay the fine and redeem the confiscated goods - imposition of fine upheld. Confiscation and imposition of redempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was instituted to inquire into fulfillment of the post importation condition in respect of such import, in the case of the appellants, it came to a conclusion that on the basis of test audit of the year 1994-95 that the appellant had not fulfilled the post import conditions. The appellant had imported the goods on 18/11/1992. The same were seized on 24/09/2001 and a show-cause notice dated 22/03/2002 was issued seeking to confiscate the goods imported by them as the importer had not satisfied the condition of the notification. Duty was sought to be demanded under Section 125 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty was sought to be imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The demand was confirmed and the matter was reac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the said notification was rescinded/superseded. He argued that the said notification No.64/88-Cus was rescinded on 01/03/1994. He argued that after 01/03/1994 the conditions under which the goods were imported cannot be enforced. He argued that the Rosha Committee had relied on the data pertaining to the period after 01/03/1994 and therefore, the findings of Rosha Committee cannot be relied for the purpose of denying the benefit of the notification. He argued that for the period 1992-93 the State Government authorities had examined the fulfillment of condition and consequently recommended issue of CDEC to them. Learned Counsel argued that when the matter was adjudicated at the first time a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- imposed on them u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was entitled to get the certificate from Respondent No. 2 which would enable the appellant to import the equipment without payment of customs duty but at the same time we would like to observe that the very notification granting exemption must be construed to cast continuing obligation on the part of all those who have obtained the certificate from the appropriate authority and on the basis of that to have imported equipments without payment of customs duty to give free treatment atleast to 40 per cent of the outdoor patients as well as would give free treatment to all the indoor patients belonging to the families with an income of less than ₹ 500/- p.m. The competent au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the notification for this period 1994-95 and in view of that the benefit of notification cannot be enjoyed by the appellant. As a result, the goods becomes liable to confiscation under Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act. 5. Now the appellant have argued that no duty or redemption fine can be imposed on them if they refused to redeem the confiscated goods. In this regard, we find that the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Fortis Hospital (supra) has observed as follows: 21. High Court is not correct in observing that it is immaterial whether option under Section 125(2) is exercised or not. We would like to point out that the High Court has referred to the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importer had violated the conditions of notification subject to which exemption of goods was granted, without attracting the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. A reference may beneficially be made to a decision of this Court reported in Mohan Meakins Ltd. v. CCE wherein it has been observed in para 6: (SCC p.465) Therefore, there is a mandatory requirement on the adjudicating officer before permitting the redemption of goods, firstly, to assess the market value of the goods and then to levy any duty or charge payable on such goods apart from the redemption fine that he intends to levy under sub-section (1) of that section. In this view of the matter the objection raised by the Centre that Section 28 of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
