TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asmuch as the goods were cleared after collecting duty on the basis of the tariff value, it cannot be held that the goods are prohibited. The betel nuts which were imported by declaring prices which were lesser than the minimum import price specified by the DGFT cannot be held as import of prohibited goods. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods is set aside along with the order for payment of redemption fine and penalty. However, the duty paid as per the tariff value is upheld - Appeal allowed in part. - C/MA(COD)/75797, 76080/17, Appeal Nos. C/76831, 76905, 76968, 76988/16, 75890, 75891, 76131, 76132, 76134, 76157, 76158, 76159, 76295, 76296, 76297, 76351, 76352, 76353, 76354, 76355, 76356, 76357, 76358, 76359/17, C/77054/16 C/7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te General of Foreign Trade(DGFT), the betel nuts below the CIF value of ₹ 110/- per kg. cannot be imported. The authorities below entertained a view that inasmuch as the value of the betel nuts in question was below ₹ 110/- per kg., their import was hit by the Notifications in question. However, the authorities allowed the betel nuts to be cleared on payment of duty, but confiscated the same in terms of the provisions of section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. The duty was calculated on the basis of tariff value fixed by the CBEC vide Notification No. 93/2013-CUS(NT) dated 30.08.2013. By fixing the less redemption fine and also the lower penalty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licensing notes. However, there is no prohibition on their importation. By any stretch of imagination, the word restriction cannot be equated or read as prohibition. This being so, invocation of Section 111(d) is not in order. Possibly one or more of the situations attracting confiscation as listed out in Section 111(a) to (p) may well have been applicable to the facts of this case, but definitely not Section 111(d). In the event the goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and by implication the invocation of Section 112(a) and Section 125 are also not sustainable. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order to the extent of confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d), imposition of redemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
