TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties imposed require to be set aside - impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the redemption fine and penalties imposed without disturbing the order of confiscation and direction to re-export. The appeal is partly allowed. - Customs Appeal Nos. 40807 to 40809 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER Nos. 40593-40595/2023 - Dated:- 20-7-2023 - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C. S. , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Assistant Commissioner / A.R. ORDER Order : Per MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C. S. The above appeals are filed against the order passed by the original authority who ordered for confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 17 of the insecticides Act, 1968 giving an option to the importer to redeem the goods only for the purpose of re-export on payment of redemption fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant M/s. SDS Ramcides Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., Chennai imported go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (e) The consignment should be accompanied by an invoice of that insecticide issued by the source of import. Even in case of routing the material through the supplier, the material is required to originate from the source of import, duly accompanied by an invoice issued only be the source of import. (f) In cases of Certificate of Registration issued for pesticides for Import / Export category, it is to be ensured that the entire quantity imported against that Certificate is Exported too. (g) In case of doubt, a material should not be released. Only on receiving confirmatory information form the Secretary, Central Insecticides Board Registration Committee the consignment may be dealt with further. 4. As per Section 9 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, 'any person desiring to import or manufacture any insecticide may apply to the Registration Committee for the registration of such insecticide and there shall be separate application for each such insecticide'. Further under Section 3(k) (vi) of the said Act, an insecticide shall be deemed to be misbranded, if it is not registered in the manner required by or under this Act. On examination of the documents of import a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the manufacturer, viz., M/s. Liyang Chemical Factory, China. It is submitted that the appellant has already re-exported the entire goods and is now contesting only the redemption fine and penalty imposed. In the appellant's own case on identical facts and issue as reported in [2018 (359) ELT 239 (Tri. Chennai)] the redemption fine and penalties were set aside. The Department has not filed any appeal against such order. 9. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the only allegation is that the goods were not directly imported from the manufacturer. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the goods were actually manufactured by the above companies M/s. Comlets Chemicals Industrial Company Limited and M/s. Liyang Chemical Factory, China as the case may be. The purpose of registration under the provisions of the insecticides Act, 1968, is to ensure that products of desired quality and standard are used on the crops so that there is no adverse impact either on the crops or on the consumers who consume the produce. To keep a check on the standard and quality of the insecticides being imported, the Central Insecticides Board ensures that only products manufactured by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chemical Factory, China), which clearly mentioned that the goods are to be delivered in Chennai, through their authorizer distributor. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that there has been substantial compliance with regard to the conditions, and the penalties imposed are unwarranted. 12. Without prejudice to the above contentions, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that no redemption fine can be imposed as the goods have been re-exported. The decisions in the cases of Siemens Ltd. Vs. Collector [1999 (113) ELT 776 (SC)], Union of India Vs. Sankar Pandi [2018 (360) ELT A 214 (SC)], Selvam Industries Ltd., VS. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2021 (377) ELT 458 (Tri. Chennai)] and Shree Salasar Tools (An HUF) VS. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2023 (5) CENTAX 128 (Tri. Mad.)] were relied. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant prayed that the redemption fine and penalty may be set aside. 13. The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri Harendra Singh Pal appeared for the Department. It is argued that there is violation of the conditions and therefore the redemption fine and penalty imposed is legal and proper. 14. Heard both sides. 15. The goods have been ordered for re-expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number of decisions has held while allowing re-export of goods, redemption fine should not be imposed. For the similar reason, the penalty imposition is not justified as it is only a technical venial breach of legal provision, which flow from the bona fide belief that the import from the distributor is also covered by the registration certificate. 3.3 After hearing the Ld. AR, I find that there is no dispute about the fact that the imported goods were actually manufactured by M/s. Jiangsu Tianrong Co. Ltd., China and as such the prime condition of the notification and registration is satisfied. I also find that such registration is required so as to ensure that the good quality insecticides only are imported. When the goods are admittedly manufactured by the empanelled manufacturer, the fact that the same have come through the distributor will not make much difference, inasmuch as the Insecticide Board itself could have allowed such Import through the distributor. The commercial invoice, Bill of lading as also the Bill of entry clearly indicate that the goods have been manufactured and exported by M/s. Liyang Chemical Factory only and it may be for the business reasons that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 76. Keeping in view the abovesaid decision there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner is entitled to re-export the articles in question and for the abovesaid purpose, it is not necessary for him to pay redemption fine as imposed by the authorities. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner is not going to import the articles and use or sell the articles within India, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 33,000/- should be quashed. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Department has opposed to this stating that the petitioner has violated and the penalty has been rightly imposed. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel the imposition of penalty of Rs. 33,000/-, keeping in view the relevant value of the articles concerned, appears to be grossly high and interest of justice would be met by reducing the penalty to Rs. 15,000/- and such amount should be paid by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Only after the amount is paid, the petitioner would be permitted to re-export the items concerned. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
