TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve authorities have issued certificates of analysis, which prove bona fides of the appellant importer. It is not the case of the department that the appellant importer was aware of the fact that the impugned goods were not conforming to the standards. Therefore, it cannot be held at least that the appellants had mens rea. In terms of Notification No. 3(RE-2001) 1997-2002 dated 31.03.2001 that the products will have to comply with the quality and packaging requirements as laid down under PFA Act and that compliance of these conditions is to be ensured before allowing customs clearance of the consignments. We understand that customs authorities have detained these consignments for this reason and have imposed penalties and fine after followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 114 A cannot be imposed in isolation. As there is no demand of duty in the impugned case, the imposition of penalty under Section 114 A cannot be sustained. Appeal is partially allowed by restricting the redemption fine to Rs. 3,00,000/- and penalty under Section 112 to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Other Appeal No. C/736/2007 is allowed. - MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Swati Chopra, Authorized Representative ORDER Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case in appeal no. C/736/2007-DB are that M/s Vanick Oils Fats Ltd. have imported 2,26,800 kgs of Hydr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -DB are that the importer has also imported 323.55 MTs of Bakery Shortening and filed bill of entry no. 1201 dated 11.07.2007 and 1210 dated 12.07.2007. On the basis of test conducted by the Central Food Laboratory was found to be not conforming to the standards laid down under PFA Act, 1954. In this instance also the show cause notice was waived and an Order-In-Original again 03/Cus/JM/07 dated 14.12.2007 was passed confiscating 323.55 MTs of bakery Shortening; allowing it to be re-exported on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act, 1962. On an appeal filed by the appellant, the CESTAT vide order dated 27.03.2012 reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 3.5 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the PFA standards are in a very low proportion in comparison with the total imports. The query of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana as to whether the imports in question are stray is answered by the fact that though the appellant has imported about 160 consignments discrepancies were found in some packages in impugned in appeal no. C/736/2007 C/192/2008 as above. However, when it came to appeal no. C/192/2008 the omission is of recurring value. 6. Coming to the question of confiscation and imposition of penalty, it is seen that some consignments have been found to be non conforming to the standards as per PFA Act and being tested by National Food Laboratory. It is the argument of the appellants that all the consignments in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that original orders of adjudication authority be maintained and appeals be dismissed. 8. In view of the above discussion, we find that the appellant importer have imported above 150 consignments, among which in about 2-3 consignments some lots were found non conforming to the standards under PFA Act. The fact that these consignments were inspected before shipment from the foreign country and respective authorities have issued certificates of analysis, which prove bona fides of the appellant importer. It is not the case of the department that the appellant importer was aware of the fact that the impugned goods were not conforming to the standards. Therefore, it cannot be held at least that the appellants had mens rea. We find that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned goods have been undoubtedly rendered liable for confiscation and accordingly the confiscation and imposition of penalty under section 112 is legal and proven. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the long history of litigation of the case, we find that ends of justice could be met if the redemption fine and penalty are suitably imposed in respect of appeal no. C/192/2008. 10. Coming to the other appeal i.e. C/736/2007 we find that in the instant case no redemption fine has been imposed and the goods were allowed to be re-exported imposing a penalty under section 114 A has been imposed. We find that penalty under Section 114 A is invariably linked to the quantum of duty evaded and therefore penalty unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
