Delhi High Court - Orders
The Principal Commissioner Of Customs, ... vs M/S Salasar Synthetics on 19 September, 2022
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CUSAA 135/2022
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ACC
IMPORTS NEW DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
versus
M/S SALASAR SYNTHETICS ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 19.09.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPLs.41289-90/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CUSAA 135/2022 and CM APPL.41288/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]
2. The record, presently, available seems to suggest that although there is no discrepancy in the gross weight of the gold "dore bars" imported by the respondent, the discrepancy occurred in the declaration of the number of bars that were imported.
2.1. The excess bars, which were two [2] in number, were confiscated and a redemption fine of Rs. 40 lakhs was imposed via the order-in-original dated 14.08.2020. Besides this, a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was also imposed, via the very same order.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA CUSAA 135/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:11.10.2022 19:31:422.2. We may note that the First Appellate Authority i.e., the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), reduced the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 2.25 lakhs, each.
2.3. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"], however, set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority, as well as the order-in-original. Permission was given to the respondent to re- export the two gold bars, which had been confiscated. 2.4. The Tribunal's rationale in reaching the conclusion seems to be that, since the gross weight and the net weight did not change, and consequently, the assessed value for calculating customs duty remained the same, the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority could not be upheld.
3. In the course of arguments, Mr Satish Kumar, who appears on behalf of the appellant, has drawn our attention to paragraph 11 of the order-in- original wherein, inter alia, the following has been noted:
"Further, since the weight of each bar is less than 5 Kgs, the same cannot be allowed to be imported as per the provisions of aforesaid condition no.40. Therefore, these bars are not eligible for concession of duty in terms of Customs Notification No.50/2017 dated 30.06.2017. Moreover, the goods are not eligible for import against DGFT Authorization as provisions of the Customs Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 are not complied with. Therefore, I find that the impugned goods i.e. gold dore bars weighing 9100 grams are prohibited as per Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, as the same can't be imported against the authorization available with the importer......"
4. Despite this observation, we find that there is no direction imposing Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA CUSAA 135/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:11.10.2022 19:31:42 additional customs duty, in the operative part of the aforementioned order. 4.1. Prima facie, it appears to us that if the respondent was not eligible for concessional duty, then the normal rate of duty should have been imposed, if this rationale had to be followed through.
5. We expect Mr Kumar to come up with a better answer, on the next date of hearing.
5.1. The discrepant documents shall also be placed before us, on the next date of hearing.
6. Accordingly, list the appeal on 23.01.2023.
7. In the meanwhile, to examine the matter further, we intend to issue notice.
8. On steps being taken, notice shall issue to the respondent, via all permissible modes, including e-mail.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 / tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA CUSAA 135/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:11.10.2022 19:31:42