TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said goods can be confiscated and redemption fine was imposed. However, since fact about the seizure of goods and provisional release of goods is not clearly coming out from the proceedings, the matter needs to be re-considered on the aspect of confiscation and redemption fine. Moreover, it is found that in most of the bills of entry, the assessees have paid the additional duty of Customs without claiming the exemption therefore, in such cases the assessees have made strong prima facie case in their favour. The entire matter needs to be re-considered for the reason that even the confiscation and redemption fine has bearing on penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No.11555-11556 of 2015 and Customs Appeal No.11318 of 2015 - A 10232-10234/2022 - Dated:- 10-3-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MR. RAMESH NAIR AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Rahul Patil, Accountant for the Appellant Shri T.G. Rathod, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the assesses M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. and M/s. Shree Renuka Agriventures Ltd. filed various warehouse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst Bills of Entry for home consumption) against advance authorizations. d. The interest should not be demanded and recovered at the appropriate rate under section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the duty demand at (b) above. The amount of ₹ 1,30,664/- paid / deposited towards interest by M/s. SRSL during investigation should not be appropriated against the demand of interest. e. The imported raw sugar 35900 MTs valued at ₹ 91,73,06,085/- should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. f. The imported raw sugar 509467.043 MT valued at ₹ 1448,01,00,081/- (cleared against warehouse Bills of Entry and respective Ex-Bond B/Es against Advance Authorizations) and 266054.533 MT having assessable value of ₹ 732,52,46,648/ (cleared against Bills of Entry for home consumption) against advance authorizations should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. g. Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112(a) and or the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, M/s. Shree Renuka Agriventures Ltd, At Post Bharapar, Tal. Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat were called upon to show cause to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horizations. d. I order recovery of interest from M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd_at the appropriate rate under section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the duty demand at (b) above. As the interest of ₹ 1,30,664/- had already been paid / deposited by M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd accordingly the same is hereby appropriated and adjusted towards their interest liability. e. I order confiscation of imported raw sugar 35900 MTs valued at ₹ 91,73,06,085/-, imported vide Bills of Entry shown in Annexure-A to the Show Cause Notice, by Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd under Section 111(m) and 111(0) of the Customs Act, 1962 which were provisionally assessed. I impose redemption fine of ₹ 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Only) on Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, in lieu of the confiscation for the goods provisionally assessed and cleared under Bond. f. I order confiscation of imported raw sugar 509467.043 MT valued at ₹ 1448,01,00,081/- (cleared against warehouse Bills of Entry and respective Ex Bond Bills of Entry against Advance Authorizations) and 266054.533 MT having assessable value of ₹ 732,52,46,648/- (cleared ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of the assessees. He submits that while presenting the warehouse bills of Entry, the CHA of assessees has inadvertently mentioned the Sr.No.12 of Notification No.21/2012 dated 17.03.2012 under exemption head. However, while clearing duty free Raw Sugar under ex-bond bills of entry for home consumption, they availed the benefit of Notification No.96/2009-Cus dated 11.09.2009, as per the said notification all duties including Basic Customs Duty, Special Additional duty are exempted. He further submits that the Special Additional Duty is levied under Section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to restrict counter balance the sales tax, value added tax, local tax, or any other charges for the time being leviable on a like articles on its sales and purchase or transportation in India however, there is no sales tax/Value Added Tax on Sugar in the Gujarat State. He submits that the assessees have not made in violation of import conditions thereby, not made any revenue loss to the Government. 2.1 The exemption of Customs duty as has been claimed, the assessees states that the revenue neutral transaction cannot be claimed as mis-declaration to evade duty. He submits that the assessees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (359) ELT 561 (Tri Delhi) NORTHERN PLASTIC LTD v/S. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE- 1998 (1010)ELT 549 (SC) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v/S. GAURAV ENTERPRISES- 2006 (193) ELT 532 (Bom) S RAJIV CO v/S. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (CSI AIRPORT), MUMBAI- 2014 (302) ELT 412 (Tri-Mumbai) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR v/S. RAJA IMPEX (P) LTD- 2008 (229) ELT 185 (P H) ARIHANT SYNTHETICS v/S. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX.SURAT- 2013 (298) ELT 278 (Tri.-Ahmd) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE v/S. POLYCAB WIRES PVT LTD- 2018 (360) ELT 391 (Bom) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE S T DAMAN v/S. POLYCAB WIRES PVT. LTD.-2015 (329) ELT 841 (Tri.Ahmd) SIRTHAI SUPERWARE INDIA LTD v/S. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-III- 2020 (371) ELT 324 (Tri.Mumbai) PSL LIMITED v/S. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA- 2015 (328) ELT 177 (Tri-Ahmd) COMMISSIONER v/S. MAN INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD- 2016 (331) ELT A 90 (SC) SHREEJI SHIPPING LTD v/S. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA- 2014 (304) ELT 139 (Tri-Ahmd) BILLY EBBY v/S. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (I), NHAVA SHEVA- 2010 (261) ELT (Tri-Mumbai) GRAPHITE INDIA LTD v/S. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (PORT) KOLKATA- 2015 (325) ELT 777 (Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re proceeding, we are unable to find whether the goods were seized and provisionally released on execution of bond for provisional release of goods. It prima facie appears that there is no seizure of goods. The adjudicating authority also in his finding stated that since the goods were provisionally assessed and cleared, the said goods can be confiscated and redemption fine was imposed. As per the judgments relied upon by the assessees, we are of prima facie view that if the imported goods were neither seized and nor released provisionally on execution of a specific bond for provisional release of goods, the confiscation of goods and consequential redemption fine cannot be confirmed in absence of availability of the imported goods. 4.1 However, since fact about the seizure of goods and provisional release of goods is not clearly coming out from the proceedings, we are of the view that the matter needs to be re-considered on the aspect of confiscation and redemption fine. Moreover, we find that in most of the bills of entry, the assessees have paid the additional duty of Customs without claiming the exemption therefore, in such cases the assessees have made strong prima facie cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
