TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r human consumption and therefore original authority as well as the appellate authority both allowed re-export of the same. As far as the demand of redemption fine and penalty is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal involving similar circumstances of re-export of food items, after being denied NOC by FSSAI and took the lenient view and rightly reduce the fine and the penalty - reliance can be placed in the case of M/S. ROYAL IMPORTS EXPORTS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS TUTICORIN [ 2021 (3) TMI 937 - CESTAT CHENNAI] . For reducing the penalty under Section 112 (a) (i), the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decisions in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPOR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and take appropriate action against the errant officials - the impugned goods are directed to be released immediately to the respondent for the purpose of re-export and refund the duty back to the respondent as observed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. - C/Stay/60074 of 2022 in Customs Appeal No. 60136 of 2022 - Misc. Order No. 60075/2023, Final ORDER NO. 60154 /2023 - Dated:- 7-6-2023 - MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Nikhil Kumar Singh, Authorized Representative Present for the Respondent: Shri Mayank Sharma, Advocate ORDER The appellant has filed a stay petition alongwith the appeal seeking stay of the impugned order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndard under Section 3 (1)(zx) and unsafe under Section 3(1)(zz)(x) of FSS Act, 2006. After obtaining of the report of the laboratory, a show cause notice dated 22.04.2021 was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation of impugned goods and penal action. The appellant vide their letter dated 23.06.2021 requested for permission to re-export the same with zero fine and penalty. After following the due process the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 as the same has been imported contrary to the prohibition imposed vide Section 25 read with Section 26(1) of the FSSAI, Act, 2006. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order passed by the commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that when the re-export is ordered redemption fine cannot be imposed and they have cited the case laws in their support which is mentioned in the order in appeal by the commissioner. He further submitted that keeping in view the nature of the goods and the delay being caused by the Revenue to release the goods, they complied with the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and deposited the fine and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- vide TR6 Challan dated 23.05.2022 which has also been produced on record. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed in para 5.4 that the goods were freely importable and there is no allegation that the respondent mis-declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reduce the fine and the penalty. 10. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Afra Traders Vs. CC, Tuticorin [2019 (369) E.L.T. 1278 (Tri.-Chennai)] 2. Vinay Enterprises Vs. CC, Tuticorin [2018 (359) E.L.T. 721 (Tri.-Chennai)] 3. Health Caps India Ltd. Vs. CC, Noida [2018 (364) E.L.T. 815 (Tri.-All.)] 4. Royal Imports Exports Vs. CC, Tuticorin-[ 2021 (377) E.L.T 865 (Tri.-Chennai.)] 11. Further for reducing the penalty under Section 112 (a) (i), the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decisions in the case of M/s Bansal Industries reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 346 (Mad)]. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that in the absence of malafide on the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in toto. Thereafter, the Respondent kept on requesting the customs authorities vide various letters to allow them to re-export the impugned goods and one such letter dated 23.05.2022 received in the office of the Commissioner on 24.05.2022 has been placed on record by the respondent but the lower authorities did not bother at all. 16. As a result of the casual approach of the authorities below, the impugned goods are lying on the port since 10.11.2020 but the customs authorities did not bother to comply with the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). It shows complete insensivity of the officers to the financial loss occurring to the respondent due to deterioration of goods, in addition to, it shows c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
