TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscate the goods imported, if any, all the provisions contained in sub-clauses is specific and Section 112 authorises the imposition of penalty. The Larger Bench has categorically held that it is open to the adjudicating authority to impose redemption fine as well as penalty even when permission is granted for re-exporting the goods. The adjudicating authority has the power to impose redemption fine and penalty - the ends of justice would be met if the redemption fine and penalty is reduced - appeal allowed in part. - C/21496/2018-SM - - - Dated:- 22-10-2018 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri N. Anand, Advocate - For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Dy. Commissioner(AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Development and Regulations) Act, 1992. Importer is also liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 1962. The importer vide their letter dt. 18/06/2018 stated that the supplier could not complete the microbiology testing procedure and they have agreed to take back the goods and therefore the importer has requested to grant permission to re-export the cargo and also to cancel the Bill of Entry filed under Advanced Authorisation. They have also requested to waive the show-cause notice. After hearing the appellant, the learned Commissioner held that as the appellant has failed to produce the required certificate from the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Govt. of India and also failed to produce NOC from competent Q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a nominal penalty or without any penalty as he deems fit. Learned counsel also relied upon the following decisions in support of his submission that once the re-export is ordered, imposition of redemption fine and penalty is not tenable in law. i. CCE Vs. Bhole Baba Dairy Industries Ltd. [2018(360) ELT 946 (Tri. All.)] ii. Siemens Ltd. Vs. CC [1999(113) ELT 776 (SC)] iii. Em Pee Syndichem Ltd. Vs. UOI [2012((279) ELT 340 (Del.)] iv. Guru Ispat Ltd. Vs. CC [2003(151) ELT 384 (Tri. Kol.) maintained by Apex Court as reported in 2003(157) ELT A87 (SC)] v. Sankar Pandi Vs. UOI [2002(141) ELT 635 (Mad.)] vi. SDS Ramcides Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC [2018(359) ELT 239 (Tri. Chennai)] vii. Regal Impex Vs. CC [2016(332) ELT 83 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods imported if any of the provisions contained under the sub-clauses is satisfied. Section 112 authorizes imposition of penalty. Section 125 contains the provisions enabling the Customs Officer to grant an option to the owner or the person from whose possession the goods have been seized to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. In an adjudication proceeding as in the present case these are the provisions which would come into play. If the owner gets the goods released after payment of redemption fine, he may either clear it for home consumption or re-export the same subject to the relevant rules. A permission granted for re-export on the basis of a request made by the owner of the goods is outside the purview of the adjudication proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
