9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the request of the importer to re-export the goods. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant imported "3-Chloro-4-(1,1,2-Trifluoro-2-(Trifluoromethoxy) Ethoxy Benzenamine" under Bill of Entry No.5017575 dated 12.08.2024. It appeared to revenue that the Appellant mis-declared their goods while filing the bill of entry. The consignment was put on hold by the DRI, Noida Regional Unit and examined by the officers of DRI, Noida at CFS-Transworlds Terminals Pvt. Ltd., and samples were drawn, but no seizure was made. The Appellant raised the concern with the overseas supplier regarding the specification and the nature of the goods supplied as mentioned in the sales contract, vide email dated 09.09.2024. The supplier responded and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 024, it was directed to decide the representation within a period of two weeks. After the order of Hon'ble High Court to decide the representation, the imported goods were seized by the DRI vide the Seizure Memo dated 23.12.2024. It is the case of the Department that the Appellant had smuggled a finished product (insecticide) i.e. Novaluron in the guise of the imported goods. The seizure memo revealed that the samples tested positive for "Novaluron". Learned Deputy Director, DRI issued a letter wherein it had mentioned that any request for re-export may be submitted to the Noida Customs Commissionerate. In the same breath, the DRI stated that the request of the Appellant seeking re-export stands rejected without citing any reason for the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de with the original authority on 03.02.2025 wherein it was explained that the goods were wrongly sent by the foreign supplier and requested for re-export of the consignment under the provisions of CBIC Circular No.04/2015-Customs dated 20.01.2015 and also informed about the financial and strategic losses due to the continued detention of the goods. Alternatively, the Appellant requested to allow the provisional release of the goods, since seized, in terms of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, paving the way for its re-export. Learned Counsel stressed that they neither ordered for the offending goods and nor did they paid to the supplier. Thus, the provisional release of the goods should have been allowed for re-export. It was reiterate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e further submitted that though the Customs Act, 1962 does not categorically mention "restricted goods", the Foreign Trade Policy along with Act and Rules made thereunder distinguish between "Restricted" and "Prohibited" goods. The prohibited goods have certain quality associated with them, and have an intrinsic taint, being harmful to the public health, public order, national security, etc., for example, arms and ammunition, narcotic drugs, etc. and therefore, makes them liable to absolute confiscation. The restricted goods are those goods whose import is permitted on fulfilling of certain conditions and are subject to restriction, which can be confiscated for violation of restrictions, but are liable to be released on payment of Redemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commissioner of Customs vs. Atul Automations Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (365) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Court had distinguished between prohibited and restricted goods and allowed release of restricted goods on payment of redemption fine. 6. Learned Departmental Authorized Representative justified the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the Appellant, being devoid of any merits, may be dismissed. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 8. I have gone through the records of the case and the submissions made. I note that the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that earlier, in similar cases, the goods were allowed for re-export. I find that in the case of Siemens Public Communication Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing the earlier decisions of the Tribunal, has set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities ordering confiscation of goods and their release on payment of redemption fine and penalty. Further in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. J.V. (P) Ltd. - 2000 (39) RLT 1074, the order of the lower authorities allowing re-export of the goods without fine and penalty was upheld. 6. As discussed above the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the various decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Inasmuch as the Commissioner vide his impugned order has given an option to the appellants to re-ship the goods back to the supplier, we hold that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
