TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indian Evidence Act, 1872) requires consideration. When such an expert clearly opines that the inspected equipments were not E-Waste and hazardous, the same is binding on the Revenue as well as the appellant herein, in the absence of any direct documentary evidences to the contrary. Admittedly, the appellant-importer is neither the end-user nor the trader since it is claimed that it would only pass on the imported medical equipment to other charitable organizations, for the use of the needy. The supplier/donor confirms the donation; the importer, who is not the end-user, confirms that the same would be given to the needy, either directly or through some charitable organization; and the Government, through the Ministry of Finance, has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. 20149 of 2022 - FINAL ORDER NO. 20199/ 2022 - Dated:- 20-4-2022 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri G.B. Eswarappa, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. B. Nanaiah, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellant had filed a Bill-of-Entry No. 5277475 dated 02.09.2021 for the import of used medical equipments and other medical items. It is the case of the appellant that the supplies of medical equipments were second-hand, used materials and objects in the proper working condition and the same were donated medical and hospital equipments for humanitarian relief by M/s. SOS International Inc., USA. 2. The supplier had issued a non-commercial invoice indicating that the items were donated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant with duty liability and penalty under Section 112(a)(i) and 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. The appellant preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority since the imported consignments were for the purposes of its charitable activities, to be used when the COVID-19 pandemic was at large, free of cost. The First Appellate Authority, however, vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 688/2022 dated 02.03.2022, having simply upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this forum. 6. Heard Shri G.B. Eswarappa, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri K.B. Nanaiah, Learned Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the Revenue.At the outset, the rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, Notification No. 28/2021-Cus.dated 24.04.2021 was issued providing exemptions, exempting Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and Health Cess on certain medical equipments. Further, Notification No. 31/2021-Cus.dated 31.05.2021 was issued, which was subsequently amended by Notification No. 41/2021-Cus. dated 30.08.2021. 9. Admittedly, the appellant-importer is neither the end-user nor the trader since it is claimed that it would only pass on the imported medical equipment to other charitable organizations, for the use of the needy. The supplier/donor confirms the donation; the importer, who is not the end-user, confirms that the same would be given to the needy, either directly or through some charita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has not placed on record as to how the appellant had benefited monetarily from the import of the medical equipments in question and also nothing is placed on record to suspect the bona fides of the appellant in contributing towards the control of the outbreak of the pandemic by sacrificing its time, men and material, etc. Moreover, the statute under Section 111 ibid. makes goods liable for confiscation subject to the satisfaction of the conditions laid down thereunder and hence, unless the relevant sub-sections of Section 111 ibid. is/are satisfied, no order as to confiscation could be made. 11.2 Here, in the case on hand, I have observed that there is an expert opinion, who has reported that the goods imported were not E-waste or haza ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtation cannot survive. By virtue of the re-assessment, the Bill-of-Entry stands regularized and so would be the import. Consequently, Section 125 ibid. will have no effect and hence, imposing redemption fine on the alleged confiscation is meaningless and the same is set aside. 13. In view of the above discussions, I find that since there was no improper importation of goods and hence, there was no scope to levy any penalty under Sections 112(a)(i) and 112(a)(ii) ibid., hence, the penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- imposed on the appellant-importer cannot also be sustained; the same is set aside and the appeal to this extent is allowed. 14. The impugned order is set aside to the extent of:- (i) Allegation of mis-declaration by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
