TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the experts of FSSAI or Staff of Sriram Institute for National Research, Delhi - There were every chances of contamination due to non-handling as per the required criteria. There is no mala-fide on the part of the appellant-importer nor a case is made out against them that they have ventured to import prohibited/restricted goods in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act - Confiscation as well as penalty set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/50872/2015-CU[SM] - A/70560/2018 - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri A. P. Mathur, Advocate And Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 dated 06 th March, 2014. The samples were sent for test and analysis to Director Sriram Institute for National Research, Delhi who vide their Test Report dated 25 th March, 2014 stated that the above subject drugs do not comply to the requirements in respect of 2 parameters out of 25 parameters checked by Sriram Laboratory, and these 2 parameters were related to microbiological tests. Under the circumstances the appellant importer requested to give necessary permission for re-export of material imported by them to the exporter in China and also requested to waive the requirement of SCN. The Adjudicating Authority allowing the re-export of the impugned goods confiscated the impugned goods and have imposed redemption fine and penalty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing. Subsequently samples are drawn by the Departmental officers and sent to Sriram Institute for testing. As the samples are not drawn by technical expert persons there is every chance of sample being subject to contamination during handling of samples, exposure of samples to air, high temperature, humidity etc. Thus, there is no mala-fide intention on the part of the appellant-importer. Further exporter from the country of origin - China had offered to take back the goods and in this view of the matter the imposition of penalty and confiscation is bad. Accordingly the Id. Counsel prays for modifying the order of confiscation and penalty. 4. The Id. A. R. for Revenue relied upon the impugned order of the Tribunal and further stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such confiscation for return of the goods and fine is also limited up to the market price of the goods. Therefore, levy of fine in lieu of confiscation is in addition to levy of penalty imposable under Section 112. Further, the case of import of tallow of any animal origin including mutton tallow 'canalised items' directly by holders of additional license is banned and further observe that it is apparent that respondent-assessee-Elephanta Oil And Industries Ltd. knowing fully well about the import policy imported prohibited goods i.e. import of 'canalised item' namely beef tallow and, therefore, the Collector was fully justified in imposing the penalty under Section 112 the Customs Act. Accordingly, the appeal allowed and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
