TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not correct. The absolute confiscation of the goods is set aside and goods are allowed to be re-exported on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2 lakhs - Penalty also reduced to ₹ 1 lac against M/s Raj Traders - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/11349-11350/2018-DB - Final Order No. A / 11760-11761 /2018 - Dated:- 17-8-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. Raju, Member ( Technical ) For Appellant : Shri S. Jai Kumar R Subramanya (Advocate) For Respondent : Shri L. Patra (AR) ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is a Trader and had imported SAMSUNG Brand LED TVs. The Customs Authorities during investigation found that the models imported by the Appellant firm do not appear to be as per BIS specifications. Also the description of the goods i.e Model Nos. declared in the Bills of Entry were different from the description found on the boxes of goods imported. The goods were not covered under BIS registration, which were mentioned in the document as well as on the stickers pasted on the corrugated boxes, which showed that the importer firm had mis-declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also violated the provisions of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. That on account of such violation, the consignment is liable for absolute confiscation. However, the adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty upon Shri Bimal Shah, proprietor of the firm on the ground that the firm has been penalised, but imposed penalty on the manager of the firm, Shri Guruvinder Singh Kochhar on the ground that he had a role to play with the imported goods on the Indian soil in violation of Customs Act, 1962. Hence the present appeals. 3. Shri Jai Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the enhancement of the value of the imported goods is without any reason as only by comparing prices of goods sold in domestic area, the prices cannot be enhanced. He further submits that the goods could not have been absolutely confiscated as the goods have been supplied from the same entities of M/s Samsung Electronics, which have been already supplying goods in India and are also manufacturing goods in India. He further submits that they may be permitted to clear the goods on payment of nominal redemption fine. The Ld. Counsel alternati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not registered under the BIS, absolute confiscation of goods is not correct. It is also fact that the goods in question is not prohibited. Further, we find that the Appellant intends to re-export the goods and in such prayer being made, we do not find any reason not to permit the same. We find that in Appellant s own case, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. IA/11/ 006- 11008-2018 dt 14.5.2018 has permitted re-export of goods in similar set of controversy on substantial reduction of Redemption Fine without any penalty. Further, in case of Sunrise Enterprises Vs. CCE (Import) Mum 2011 (2074) ELT 200 (Tri), the CESTAT has allowed re-export of goods when the same did not conform to BIS Standards and were also imported in breach of relevant provisions of Exim Policy. We find that when the Appellant has requested for re-export of goods, the same can be granted subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that when the goods are permitted to be re-exported, the imposition of redemption fine is not justified. We find that the goods are not hazardous or for human consumption. In such case, the goods though restricted to be imported, but cannot be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that SONY Sony television sets have been procured from facilities which supply the same to M/s Sony India Ltd, and the registration for import by M/s Sony India Ltd being approved, compliance with the registration scheme is beyond question. The confiscation of SONY television sets under section 111(d) is not tenable and the direction of re-export is even less so. Insofar as SAMSUNG sets are concerned, there is no evidence of registration which warrants confiscation under section 111(d) as a natural consequence and, in view of the lack of registration, clearance into the domestic market on payment of redemption fine would run counter to the objectives of the Foreign Trade Policy in prescribing such registration as a pre-requisite for import. The quality of the goods and safety to the consumer is assured only with such registration. Accordingly, confiscation of SAMSUNG sets is valid and the condition of re-export for redemption cannot be faulted. 7 . As the SAMSUNG television sets are required to be re-exported without being cleared on payment of duty, valuation is not relevant. Considering also that these are not to be permitted entry into the domestic market, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
