TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gness to accept back (re-export) the consignment, there cannot be any question of redemption fine. Therefore, the redemption fine imposed and upheld by the First Appellate Authority cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside - the redemption fine charged under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is unsustainable and the same is required to be deleted. Levy of penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- A reading of the said Section makes it clear that the penalty under Section 112 (a) would be imposed in the case of improper importation of goods which has rendered the imported goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 and for this, it is held that abatment is not a criterion - the case on hand gets cove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 vide its reports NCC No. NNC201900013706 dated 07.03.2019 and NCC No. RNCC201900000071 dated 23.04.2019. (iv) The Lower Adjudicating Authority found that the import of 1,20,000 kgs of Chick Peas (Tanzania Yellow Gram (Desi Chick Peas)) imported from Tanzania, had been rejected by the FSSAI as the mineral matter content exceeded the maximum standard limit and therefore held that the imported 1,20,000 kgs of Chick Peas (Tanzania Yellow Gram (Desi Chick Peas)) valued at ₹ 57,49,225/- is liable for confiscation and thereby ordered for confiscation of the above said imported cargo under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, gave option to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and hence, both cannot run simultaneously, which means redemption fine is leviable only as an alternative to confiscation. The appellant here in this case has not questioned the confiscation and hence, there is no option available to it. Consequently, there is no question of exercising any option in lieu of confiscation. When the order as to the confiscation remains unchallenged, the importer accepts the order of confiscation and even the exporter offers willingness to accept back (re-export) the consignment, there cannot be any question of redemption fine. Therefore, the redemption fine imposed and upheld by the First Appellate Authority cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. 7.2.2 This view is supported by various judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that the case on hand gets covered under the mischief of Section 112 (a) ibid. 7.2 My above view is supported by the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sankar Pandi Vs. Union of India reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 635 (Mad.) which decision has thereafter been upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court [2018 (360) E.L.T. A214 (S.C.)], wherein similar penalty has been upheld. 7.3 However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the undisputed bona fides of the appellant, the penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. The impugned order as regards imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a) ibid. is modified to this extent. 8. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
