TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignment, 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 can be concluded that abetment is not a criterion. Apparently, Clause (a) of Section 112 has two limbs the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tandards Authority of India ( FSSAI for short) rejected the above import cargo under Section 25(1)(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as the sample did not conform to the standards laid down under Regulation 2.3.55 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 vide its report NCC No. RNCC201800000138 dated 26.12.2018. (iv) After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 31/2019-ADC dated 28.05.2019 ordered confiscation of the above said imported cargo under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the provisions of the the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Clearly, as the heading itself points out, the fine i.e., redemption fine, is an option in lieu of confiscation 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods liable to confiscation, as indicated above, is sufficient to attract penalty. Therefore, I am of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
