Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (1) TMI 1127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act or law framed there under. What is made punishable under the Customs Act is the 'blameworthy' conduct of the importer. A mere claim of exemption by the importer cannot be visited by confiscation of goods along with fine and penalty. Further, charge of suppression could not have been brought against an importer if he has correctly described the goods in the Bill of Entry as held by the Apex Court in NORTHERN PLASTIC LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE [ 1998 (7) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT] . Since the description of goods and classification done by the importer has been found correct and accepted by the department, it is found that the confiscation of the goods and imposition of fine was improper and merits to be set as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, had filed a Bill of Entry No. 3450978 dated 3.10.2017 for the clearance of the goods declared as GSL Artemia Brine Shrimp Foods by classifying them under CTH 05119911 and sought to avail the preferential rate of IGST under Sl. No. 33 of the Notification No. 002/2017-Cus dated 28.6.2017. The department felt that the goods were eligible for the benefit of IGST Notification No. 001/2017 under Sl. No. 21 of Schedule I which attracts IGST @5% and not under Notification No. 002/2017-Cus. The importer requested adjudication without issue of Show cause Notice and personal hearing. The learned Joint Commissioner in his order confirmed IGST @ 5% as per IGST Notification No. 001/2017 and also held that the importer had cleared the same goods prev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom that declared in the Bill of Entry i.e. CTH 0511 9919 which only covers Artemia . . The goods under import are Artemia Brine Shrimp Eggs , which are admittedly used as prawn feed. . Prawn feed is specifically covered under CTH 2309. He however stated that since duty has already been paid and a long time had passed, they are not contesting the classification and are now only pleading for dropping the demand for differential duty made without issue of SCN along with setting aside the confiscation, fine and penalty confirmed by the impugned order without any valid reason. 3.2 The learned AR stated on behalf of Revenue that the imported goods were Artemia and were covered under the specific Customs Tariff Heading 0511 9919. Further t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... against the importer, as held by the Apex Court in Northern Plastics. Further no penal action can be taken merely for claiming the benefit of an exemption notification. He hence prayed that the confiscation of the impugned goods as ordered and the redemption fine imposed may be dropped. Secondly, with respect to Bill of Entry No. 2311679 dated 4.7.2017, he stated that since the adjudicating authority had not given them a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing, they were unaware of the charges that were made and they could not respond to the same. Hence this was in violation of the principles of natural justice and such an order cannot sustain. He hence prayed that the differential duty demanded in this case may also be set aside. Finally, h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... understand the precise case set up against him, which he has to meet. Without meeting this fundamental requirement the order cannot sustain as it is in violation of principles of natural justice and the demand of differential duty in this regard also merits to be set aside. The question of confiscation of the goods hence does not arise. Having found that the importer-appellant has not violated any provisions of the Act or rules, we also set aside the penalty imposed upon them. The Hon ble Apex Court in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority [(2015) 3 SCC 49] held that the principle of judicial approach demands a decision to be fair, reasonable and objective. On the obverse side, anything arbitrary and whimsical would not satisfy .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates