Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (2) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wing the appellant to re-export the goods. This conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the order of the adjudicating authority is highly erroneous in absence of an appeal filed by the department. The said order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to confiscate the goods without option to redeem the goods for re-export requires to be set aside. The Tribunal has held that when the goods are allowed to be re-exported, the imposition of redemption fine cannot sustain. In the present case, the adjudicating authority has also imposed penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs. The adjudicating authority after considering the submissions made by the appellant that the goods were intended to be supplied to another customer of another .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... TWZ so as to avoid customs examination of undeclared goods. The importer was thus trying to evade customs duty on undeclared goods and also attempting to smuggle the goods before they are taken to FTWZ. During course of investigation vide letter dated 20.3.2020, the importer inter alia stated that due to COVID situation and he is aged about 67 years, he cannot present himself before the authorities. It was submitted by him that the shipper had provided information that the Container No. CAIU7487227 had wrongly been exported to them and it was actually to be shipped to another customer of another country. They requested for re-export of the container and also requested for waiver of Show Cause Notice. After adjudication, the adjudicating aut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt had challenged the order passed by the adjudicating authority with regard to the redemption fine and penalty imposed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order allowing re-export of the goods when the department has not filed any appeal. Against the order of the adjudicating authority, which allowed re-export of the goods on payment of redemption fine, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot set aside the direction of re-export in the appeal filed by this appellant. 5. With regard to the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority, the learned counsel submitted that when the goods are redeemed only for the purposes of re-export, the authorities cannot impose any redemption fine. The goods are not cleared for home .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... supported the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. The adjudicating authority after considering the facts of the case and the representation given by the appellant that the goods were intended to be supplied to another customer of another country has accepted the request for re-export put forward by the appellant. The department has not filed any appeal against the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant has filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) challenging only the imposition of redemption fine and the penalty. The contention raised by appellant in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that when the adjudicating authority allowed re-export of the goods, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... L.T. 776 (S.C.), their Lordships have held that since goods have been allowed to be re-exported, neither redemption fine nor duty was required to be paid. The Tribunal in the case of HCL Hewlett Packard Ltd. - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 367 (T) has held that no redemption fine is imposable when re-export of the goods is allowed. To the same effect is the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Padia Sales Corpn. v. CC - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 90 and in the case of Skantrons (P) Ltd. - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 635. We further find that the Tribunal in the case of G.V. International and Another - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 517 = 2000 (39) RLT 272, following the earlier decisions of the Tribunal, has set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities ordering confiscation o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates