Redemption Fine And Customs Duty Not Required To Be Paid When Goods Are Allowed To Be Re-Exported: CESTAT
Mariya Paliwala
4 Oct 2023 5:30 AM GMT
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that when the goods are allowed to be re-exported, neither the redemption fine nor duty is required to be paid. At the same time, the penalty is also not to be imposed on the importers.The bench of Anil G. Shakkarwar (a technical member) allowed the six appeals and observed that a penalty to the extent...
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that when the goods are allowed to be re-exported, neither the redemption fine nor duty is required to be paid. At the same time, the penalty is also not to be imposed on the importers.
The bench of Anil G. Shakkarwar (a technical member) allowed the six appeals and observed that a penalty to the extent of 20% of the assessable value of the goods confiscated and ordered for re-export was imposed, and the same is justifiable.
The appellant/assessee imported cellulose soft waste and filed bills of entry. The department noted that the appellants were required to produce permission for the import of said goods from the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Climate Change in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. None of the importers could bring such permission, and they approached the original authority by waiving show cause notice and a personal hearing requesting permission to re-export the goods.
The original authority, through the above-stated orders, confiscated the said goods and, without imposing any redemption fine, directed the importers to re-export the goods. The original authority imposed penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the appellants. The appellant, Unitec Inc., was imposed with a penalty of a total amount of Rs. 3,00,000 in three orders-in-original put together. The appellant, Gulab Fibres, was imposed with a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant, Goyal Trading Co., was imposed with a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000 through two orders-in-original.
Aggrieved by the said orders of the original authority, the appellants preferred to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of six appeals through an impugned order-in-appeal, rejected all the appeals and upheld orders passed by the original authority.
The appellant contended that when the goods are re-exported, penalties under the Customs Act are not imposable on the appellant.
The tribunal set aside all the penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Counsel For Appellant: Anil Balani
Counsel For Respondent: D.S. Mann
Case Title: M/s. Goyal Trading Co. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 88336 of 2019
