TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods was 41%, lead 37% and plastic and ferrous 22% as per the transboundary movement documents and load port certificate. When the goods are allowed for re-export, there should not be any redemption fine because redemption fine is for enjoyment of the goods in the manner of home consumption even when a law is violated. Redemption fine in a way redeems the violation committed by the importer and paves the way for unencumbered enjoyment of the imported goods thereafter. However, this is not a case where the goods have been cleared for home consumption - redemption fine is an overkill and is to be set aside. Penalty u/s 112 (a) of the CA 1962 - Held that: - Lalkamal, the High sea buyer, M/s.Sterling Steels, the original importer will surely require a rap on the knuckles at least for the wrong declaration in the Bill of Entry. However, the penalties imposed on these persons under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 of ₹ 2 lakhs each is excessive and interest of justice would be served by reducing the penalties on them to ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). Penalty on Vimal Kumar, Asif Rehman, proprietors of Sri Lalkamal Enterprises and Sterling Steels respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meriting classification under CTH 74040019 and is restricted for import and the said product should be registered with Ministry of Environment and Forest. In absence of both import licence as well as Ministry's certification, the goods imported were seized by D.R.I, Chennai on 19.11.2010. Pursuant to investigations carried out, Revenue took the view that the importer Lalkamal (appellant in C/197/2011), Shri Vimal Kumar, Proprietor of Lalkamal (appellant in C/198/2011), Shri Abdul Saleem (appellant in C/199/2011), M/s.Sterling Steels (appellant in C/200/2011) and Shri Asif Rehman, Prop. Of Sterling Steels(appellant in C/201/2011) had imported the said consignment with full knowledge that Copper Cable Scrap of Druid Grade is not freely importable; that they did not have import licence; that they deliberately misdeclared the description of goods by splitting them as three different items, namely, Copper Scrap, Lead Scrap and Insulation Material to overcome the license restrictions enforced. Hence in the proceedings initiated against the appellants, vide impugned order No.15113/2011 dt. 09.03.2011, the adjudicating authority inter alia, ordered the following : (1) Rejection of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged that Lalkamal have committed any misdeclaration. iii) The department has alleged that importer did not declare that the goods are Druid and that they have misdeclared as copper scrap, lead scrap and insulation material. Ld. Advocate draws our attention to Schedule IV of the list of Hazardous Wastes requiring Registration for recycling / reprocessing, wherein at Sl.No.7 it has been clearly listed as under :- 7. Insulated Copper Wire Scrap / copper with PVC sheathing including ISRI-code material namely Druid . Ld. Advocate submits that the goods imported by them are also very same insulated copper wire scrap with PVC sheathing. However, as the said copper waste had primary components of copper, lead (41%, lead 31% and plastic), they were separately indicated in the commercial invoice although under the general heading Copper Cable Scrap . Consequently, the Bill of Entry was also declared in the same manner showing copper scrap, lead scrap and insulation material separately. iv) There was no malafide in the manner of declaration of the goods by the importer. Even the pre-shipment inspection certificate by international independent inspection and testing company at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / Central Pollution Control Board. However, the importer M/s.SriLalkamal Enterprises did not possess such registration for recycling reprocessing copper wire Druid grade. The Registration certificate pointed out by the Ld. Advocate is only for import of inter alia copper scrap of Basal No.B-1010 and not Copper Wire Scrap (Druid grade). The adjudicating authority has correctly concluded that only to avoid licensing restrictions the importers have misdeclared the goods as copper scrap, lead scrap and insulation material instead of Copper Wire Scrap Druid Grade. Hence for these reasons, the confiscation of the goods and the imposition of the penalties is very much justified. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 The main contention of the department is that the imported goods have been misdeclared as copper scrap, lead scrap and insulated material whereas they are actually Copper Wire Scrap with PVC sheathing of Druid grade which can be imported without a license only by the units registered with the Ministry of Environment and Forests but the importer herein does not possess such license. 5.2 On the other hand, Ld. Advocate has been at pains to contend t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ardous Wastes Rules were furnished at the time of import. Nonetheless, we find that Lalkamal, the High sea buyer, M/s.Sterling Steels, the original importer will surely require a rap on the knuckles at least for the wrong declaration in the Bill of Entry. However, the penalties imposed on these persons under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 of ₹ 2 lakhs each, in our view, is excessive and interest of justice would be served by reducing the penalties on them to ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). So ordered. We further note that the penalties on the other appellants Vimal Kumar, Asif Rehman cannot be sustained since they are proprietors of Sri Lalkamal Enterprises and Sterling Steels respectively and it is settled law that both proprietor and the proprietaryship firm cannot be penalized in such matters. Hence penalties imposed on these persons are set aside. 5.4 Appellant Shri Abdul Saleem has been indicated as friend of Shri Asif Rehman, Proprietor of Sterling Steel who had allegedly arranged import consignment from Qatar. In our view, the said appellant was only in the nature of a broker or agent who brought sellers and buyers together and it would be unfai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
