Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sahi Trading Company vs Patparganj on 1 July, 2024
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. I
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52255 OF 2019
[Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 01-SVS-PR-COMMR-ICD-PPG-2019-
20 dated 31.5.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (ICD)
Patparganj, New Delhi ]
M/s Sahi Trading Company ......Appellant
310 Vishwa Sadan District Centre
Janakpuri,
New Delhi 110058
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Customs ....Respondent
ICD, Patparganj
New Delhi 110096
APPEARANCE:
Shri Devesh Tripathi and Shri Mukeshwar Nath Dubey, Advocates for
the appellant.
Shri PRV Ramanan, Special Counsel and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized
Representative for the Department
With
C/52470/2019, C/52471/2019, C/52472/2019, C/52473/2019,
C/52474/2019, C/52475/2019, C/52476/2019, C/52479/2019,
C/52481/2019, C/52482/2019, C/52483/2019, C/52894/2019,
C/52895/2019, C/52896/2019, C/52897/2019, C/52898/2019,
C/52899/2019, C/52900/2019, C/52901/2019, C/52902/2019,
C/52903/2019, C/52904/2019, C/52905/2019.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NOs. 55952-5597/2024
DATE OF HEARING : 18.04.2024
DATE OF DECISION: 01.07.2024
2
C/52255/2019 & Others
P.V. SUBBA RAO:
These twenty four appeals have been filed by the importers, their
partners/ proprietors and the Revenue assailing the same Order in
original dated 31.5.20191 passed by the Principal Commissioner of
Customs, ICD, Patparganj. Hence they are being disposed of together.
2. Customs Appeal No. 52255 of 2019 is filed by M/s. Sahi
Trading Company2 to assail the confirmation of demand with interest
and imposition of redemption fine and penalties on it.
3. Customs Appeal No. 52470 of 2019 is filed by M/s. Kay Pee
Enterprises3 to assail the confirmation of demand with interest and
imposition of redemption fine and penalties on it.
4. Customs Appeal No. 52482 of 2019 is filed by M/s.
Universal Impex4 to assail the confirmation of demand with interest
and imposition of redemption fine and penalties on it.
5. Customs Appeal No. 52481 of 2019 is filed by M/s. S P
Enterprises5 to assail the confirmation of demand with interest and
imposition of redemption fine and penalties on it.
6. Customs Appeal No. 52479 of 2019 is filed by M/s.
Goodluck Trading Co.6 to assail the confirmation of demand with
interest and imposition of redemption fine and penalties on it.
1 Impugned order
2 Sahi
3 Kay Pee
4 Universal
5 SP
6 Goodluck
3
C/52255/2019 & Others
7. Customs Appeal No. 52474 of 2019 is filed by Shri Sanjay
Puri7 to assail the penalty of Rs. 5,80,000/- imposed on him.
8. Customs Appeal No. 52472 of 2019 is filed by Shri Amit
Malhotra8 to assail the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed on him.
9. Customs Appeal No. 52471 of 2019 is filed by Shri Sanjay
Malhotra9 to assail the penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/- imposed on him.
10. Customs Appeal No. 52476 of 2019 is filed by Ms. Kiran
Puri10 to assail the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed on her.
11. Customs Appeal No. 52483 of 2019 is filed by Ms. Ashu
Chopra11 to assail the penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/- imposed on her.
12. Customs Appeal No. 52473 of 2019 is filed by Ms. Tripta
Thapar12 to assail the penalty of Rs. 2,30,000/- imposed on her.
13. Customs Appeal No. 52475 of 2019 is filed by Shri Vinod
Kumar Thapar13 to assail the penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- imposed on
him.
14. Customs Appeals No. 52894 to 52905 of 2019 have been
filed by the Revenue assailing the non-imposition of penalties under
some sections in the impugned order.
15. We have heard Shri Devesh Tripathi assisted by Shri Mukeshwar
Nath Dubey, learned counsels for the importers, their partners and
proprietors and Shri PRV Ramanan learned Special Counsel assisted by
7 Sanjay
8 Amit
9 Malhotra
10 Kiran
11 Ashu
12 Tripta
13 Vinod
4
C/52255/2019 & Others
Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned authorised representative for the Revenue
and perused the records.
16. Although the Show Cause Notice in these cases was issued by the
Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence14, both sides wanted to
argue the appeals only on merits and did not want to press the question
of jurisdiction of DRI to issue the SCN.
Facts of the case
17. Sahi, SP, Universal, Kay Pee and Goodluck imported readymade
garments and filed Bills of Entry declaring them as Polyester knitted
Girl's/kids leggings which they classified under Customs Tariff Item15
6115 99 90 and Polyester Knitted Pyjamas, which they classified under
CTI 6108 99 90, assessed and paid duty. These Bills of Entry were
processed by the jurisdictional officers and the goods were cleared after
examination as per the examination instructions. Orders permitting
clearance of goods for home consumption (commonly referred to as
'out of charge') were given under section 47 of the Customs Act, 196216
and the importers took the goods accordingly to their premises.
18. Thereafter, the DRI received intelligence that "ladies trousers"
were being mis-declared as 'Girls leggie/Kids Leggie/Pyjama and
conducted searches at various warehouses and seized goods, drew
samples of goods described as 'Polyester Knitted Girls Pyjamas' and
sent them to Textile Committee for test and report. There were two
varieties of goods viz., "MNS-LBK" and "HQ-Z" series. The Textile
14 DRI
15 CTI
16 The Customs Act.
5
C/52255/2019 & Others
Committee gave its reports according to which the HQ-Z series goods
declared as 'polyester knitted 'girls pyjamas' or leggies were made of
woven viscose fabrics. 'MNS-LBK' variety was made of
Polyester/polyurethane knitted fabrics and that 'HQ-Z' series was made
of woven viscose fabrics. Further, as per the reports of the Textile
Committee, goods described as 'girls' pyjamas' in the test memo were
'Polyester/polyurethane knitted 'girls trousers' classifiable under
Harmonised System of Classification17 6104 63 and that goods
described as 'girls leggies' in the test memo were 'Viscose woven 'girls
trousers' classifiable under HS 6204 69.
19. The imported goods were therefore, seized but major portion of
the goods were subsequently released. Show Cause Notice18 dated
9.6.2017 was issued by the DRI to the importers, their partners and
proprietors proposing to hold that the imported goods were polyester
knitted trousers for girls classifiable under CTI 6104 30 00 and
Viscose Woven Trousers classifiable under CTI 6204 69 90. It was
proposed to recover the differential duty, confiscate the seized goods
and impose penalties on the importers as well as on the partners or
proprietors of the importer firms.
20. The Principal Commissioner adjudicated the matter and passed
the impugned order, the operative part of which is reproduced below:
" (A) M/s Sahi Trading Company, 310 Vishwa Sadan, District Centre,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058:
(i) I reject the claim of M/s Sahi Trading Company, 310 Vishwa
Sadan, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 for
classification of "Polyester knitted trousers for girls" imported by
17 HS
18 SCN
6
C/52255/2019 & Others
them as "polyester knitted leggies" under CTH No. 61159990 and
order to re-classify the same under CTH No. 61046300 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975;
(ii) I also reject the claim of M/s Sahi Trading Company, New Delhi
for classification of "Viscose woven trousers" imported by them as
"Polyester knitted Pyjamas" under CTH No. 61083990 as per details
mentioned in Annexure-A to this order and order to re-classify the
same under CTH No. 62046990;
(iii) I order for confiscation of seized goods valued at Rs. 3,31,815/-
under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give
M/s Sahi Trading Company, New Delhi an option to redeem the
same on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 35000.
(iv) I confirm the demand of differential customs duty amounting
to Rs. 58,16,763/- as per details mentioned in Annexure-A of this
order under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and order that the
same be recovered from M/s Sahi Trading Company, New Delhi
along with the interest at the appropriate rates under section 28AA
of the Act ibid.
(v) I impose a penalty of Rs Rs. 58,16,763/- on M/s Sahi Trading
Company, New Delhi under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962
for the contraventions mentioned above and refrain from imposing
separate penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Under first proviso to Section 114A of the Act ibid, I give M/s Sahi
Trading Company, New Delhi, a option to avail the benefit of
reduced penalty to the extent of 25% of the penalty if the entire
amount of duty along with interest is paid within a period of 30 days
from the date of communication of this order.
(B) M/s Kay Pee Enterprises, Khasra No. 748, Extended Lal Dora,
Village-Ghevra, New Delhi-110041
(i) I reject the claim of M/s Kay Pee Enterprises, Khasra No. 748,
Extended Lal Dora, Village -Ghevra, New Delhi-110041 for
classification of "Viscose woven trousers" imported by them as
"Polyester knitted leggies" under CTH No. 61159990 and order to
re-classify the same under CTH No. 62046990 of the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975;
(ii) I confirm the demand of differential customs duty of Rs.
12,77,696/- as per details mentioned in Annexure-B of this order
under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and order that the same
be recovered from M/s Sahi Trading Company, New Delhi along with
the interest at the appropriate rates under section 28AA of the Act
7
C/52255/2019 & Others
ibid be recovered from M/s Sahi Trading Company, New Delhi on
the above amount of short payment of customs duty;
(iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 12,77,696/- on M/s Kay Pee
Enterprises, New Delhi under Section 114A of the Customs Act,
1962 for the contraventions mentioned above. Under first proviso
to section 114A, they may avall the benefit of reduced penalty to
the tune of 25% of the penalty amount if the entire amount of duty
along with interest is paid within a period of 30 days from the date
of communication of this order, then the penalty amount under
Section 114A of the Act ibid shall be reduced to 25% provided the
reduced penalty is also paid within the same time frame;
(iv) I refrain from imposing any separate penalty on M/s Kay Pee
Enterprises, New Delhi under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962
as the penalty under section 114A of the Act ibid has been imposed
upon them. I also do not impose any separate penalty on M/s Kay
Pee Enterprises, New Delhi under Section 114AA of the Customs
Act, 1962 for the reasons discussed above.
(C) M/s Universal Impex, 71/16, Village-Ghevra, New Delhi-
110041:
(i) I reject claim of M/s Universal Impex, 71/16, Village Ghevra,
New Delhi for classification of "viscose woven trousers for girls"
imported by them as "polyester knitted Pyjamas" under CTH No.
61083990 as per details mentioned in Annexure-C to this order and
re-classify the same under CTH No. 62046990 of the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975;
(ii) I confirm the demand of differential customs duty of Rs.
15,11,996/- as per details mentioned in Annexure-C of this order
under section 28 of the Act ibid and order for its recovery from M/s
Universal Impex, 71/16, Village Ghevra, New Delhi alongwith
interest at the appropriate rates under section 28AA of the Act ibid.
(m) I impose a penalty of Rs. 15,11,996/- on M/s Universal Impex,
71/16, Village Ghevra, New Delhi under Section 114A of the
Customs Act, 1962 for the contraventions mentioned above and
refrain from imposing any separate penalty on them under Section
112 of the Customs Act, 1962 as penalty under section 114A of the
Act ibid has been imposed upon them;
Under first proviso to Section 114A of the Act ibid, I give M/s
Universal Impex, 71/16, Village Ghevra, New Delhi an option to
avail the benefit of reduced penalty to the extent of 25%, if the
entire amount of duty along with interest is paid within a period of
30 days from the date of communication of this order.
8
C/52255/2019 & Others
(D) M/s S.P. Enterprises, Plot No. 649, Part-A, Bahadurgarh,
Jhajjar-124507 (Haryana):
(i) I reject claim of M/s S.P. Enterprises, Plot No. 649, Part-A,
Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar -124507 (Haryana) for classification of
"viscose woven trousers for girls" imported by them as "polyester
knitted Pyjamas" under CTH No. 61083990 as per details
mentioned in Annexure-D to this order and re-classify the same
under CTH No. 62046990 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;
(ii) I confirm the demand of differential customs duty of Rs.
23,81,648/ as per details mentioned in Annexure-D of this order
under section 28 of the Act ibid and order for its recovery from M/s
S.P. Enterprises, Plot No. 649, Part-A, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar-124507
(Haryana) alongwith interest at the appropriate rates under section
28AA of the Act ibid. (ii)
(iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 23,81,648/- on M/s S.P. Enterprises,
Plot No. 649, Part-A, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar-124507 (Haryana)
under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 for the
contraventions discussed above refrain from imposing any separate
penalty on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 as
penalty under section 114A of the Act ibid has been imposed upon
them. Under first proviso to Section 114A of the Act ibid, I give M/s
S.P. Enterprises, Plot No. 649, Part-A, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar-124507
(Haryana) an option to avail the benefit of reduced penalty to the
extent of 25% of the penalty amount if the entire amount of duty
along with interest is paid within a period of 30 days from the date
of communication of this order.
(E) M/s Goodluck Trading Company, Shop No. 7, B-7, Inderlok, New
Delhi-110035:
(i) reject claim of M/s Goodluck Trading Company, Shop No. 7, B-
7, Inderlok, New Delhi-110035 for classification of "Polyester
knitted trousers" for girls imported by them as "Pyjamas" under
CTH No. 61083990 as per details mentioned in Annexure-E to this
order and re-classify the same under CTH No. 61046300 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975;
(ii) I also reject their claim for classification of "Viscose woven
trousers of girls" imported by them as "Polyester knitted pyjamas"
under CTH No. 61083990 as per details mentioned in Annexure-E
of this order and order to re-classify the same under CTH No.
62046990;
(i)I order for confiscation of the seized goods valued at Rs.
2,98,597/-under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and
given them an option to redeem the same on payment of
Redemption Fine of Rs. 30000/-
9
C/52255/2019 & Others
(ii) I confirm the demand of differential custom duty of Rs.
46,78,534/- as per details mentioned in Annexure-E of this order
under section 28 of the Act ibid and along with interest at the
appropriate rates under section 28AA of the Act ibdi.
(iii)I impose a penalty of Rs. 46,78,534/- on M/s Goodluck Trading
Company, New Delhi under section 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962
for the contraventions discussed above and refrain from imposing
separate penalty on them under section 112 of the Customs Act,
1962(as penalty under section 114A of the Act ibid has been
imposed upon them) and section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962
for the reasons mentioned above.
However, under first proviso to Section 114A of the Act ibid, M/s
Goodluck Trading Company, New Delhi are provided option to avail
the benefit of reduced penalty if the entire demand of duty along
with interest is paid within a period of 30 days from the date of
communication of this order, then the penalty amount under section
114A of the Act ibid shall be reduced to 25% provided the reduced
penalty is also paid within the same time frame;
(F)(i) further impose penalty on the following persons under section
112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the violations as discussed
above:
S. Name of the Person Partner/ Name of the firm Amount of
NO Proprietor penalty
.
1 Shri Sanjay Puri Partner M/s Goodluck 5,80,000/-
Proprietor Trading Co.
M/s Kay Pee
Enterprises
2 Shri Amit Malhotra Partner M/s Sahi Trading 3,00,000/-
Co.
M/s Universal
Impex
3 Shri Sanjay Partner M/s S P Enterprises 1,20,000/-
Malhotra
4 Ms. Kiran Puri Partner M/s Sahi Trading 3,00,000/-
Co.
M/s Universal
Impex
5 Ms. Ashu Chopra Partner M/s S P Enterprises 1,20,000/-
6 Ms. Tripta Thapar Partner M/s Good Luck 2,30,000/-
Trading Co.
7 Shri Vinod Kumar - - 15,00,000/
Thapar -
I refrain from imposing separate penalty on the above persons under Section 114A & 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 for the reasons mentioned above;"
21. Aggrieved, the importers and their partners and proprietors filed these appeals. Revenue was also aggrieved by the impugned order as 10 C/52255/2019 & Others no penalties were imposed under sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act. Hence, Revenue filed these appeals. Submissions on behalf of the importers and their partners/proprietors
22. Learned counsel for the importers, their partners and proprietors made the following submissions:
(i) The Bills of Entry were filed by the appellants classifying the imported goods as per their understanding and the goods were cleared after verification and examination by the proper officers.
Therefore, the importers cannot be alleged to have mis-declared anything even if the classification is incorrect. Therefore, confiscation of the goods under section 111(m) of the Customs Act is not sustainable;
(ii) The samples were drawn by DRI after the goods had been cleared from the warehouses whereas the goods which were actually imported were examined by the customs officers and cleared. In all 71 samples were drawn by DRI of which 46 are related to the impugned order and there were four test reports. Two of these have no suggestion of classification by the Textile Committee. The textiles Committee had, by letter dated 1.9.2016 informed that they provide classification of textile and textile articles in accordance with Harmonised system but not as per Customs Tariff Headings;
(iii) The test report dated 21.9.2016 in respect of Girls Pyjama states that 'in our opinion, the submitted garments may be 11 C/52255/2019 & Others classified as polyester/polyurethane Knitted Girls Trousers under HS 6104.61;
(iv) The test report dated 30.8.2016 in respect of Girls Pyjama states it "cannot assess HS classification";
(v) Test Report dated 8.10.2016 with respect of samples of Girls Leggies states 'in our opinion, the submitted garments may be classified as 'Viscose Girl's Trouser" under HS 6204.69;
(vi) Test report dated 30.08.2016 relating to samples of Girls Leggies states it "cannot assess the HS classification";
(vii) Thus the test reports are inconclusive and contradictory;
(viii) During investigation, sales invoices and party-wise ledgers were provided which showed how the goods were sold in the market but the investigating officers appear to have not investigated this matter at the buyers' end;
(ix) The terms 'Trouser' and 'Pyjama' have not been defined in the tariff. CBEC, in its instruction dated 21.3.2017, inter alia, clarified that Trousers are formal wear and should be able to be worn with braces irrespective of whether or not they are worn with braces. It further clarifies that the definition of trouser is not conclusive;
(x) The Textiles Committee did not determine that the garments were Trousers and not Pyjamas and if so why. It only gave its opinion regarding HS classification. Therefore, their goods cannot be reclassified merely based on this opinion; 12
C/52255/2019 & Others
(xi) Demands were confirmed against importers M/s. SP Enterprises and Goodluck Trading Co. in respect of whose imports there is not even any test report on record;
(xii) Even if the department wishes to change the classification, it can only do so prospectively and not for goods which had already been cleared;
(xiii) Demands have been made and confirmed on the basis of these test reports on consignments which were cleared in the past. Neither were any samples drawn nor were they tested nor was any expert opinion sought in respect of those goods. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable;
(xiv) Even if the classification is decided against the importers, there is no reason to impose penalties or confiscate goods or impose redemption fines;
(xv) Learned counsel submitted for our perusal samples of the imported goods.
Submissions on behalf of Revenue
23. Learned Special Counsel assisted by the learned authorised representative for the Revenue made the following submissions.
(i) While learned counsel for the importers submitted samples for perusal of the bench, it is not clear as to how and when they were drawn. Extra copies of the samples drawn and sealed by the officers along with signatures of the officers 13 C/52255/2019 & Others and the importers have been submitted after the hearing for perusal of the bench;
(ii) On the core issue of classification of the subject goods, the garments in question enveloped each leg separately and extended from the hip to the ankle. These had two seams and were hemmed at the bottom. These garments were not part of a set comprising a top and bottom and had elasticated waist band. These are in the nature of formal wear and qualify to be called as 'trousers';
(iii) Applying the rule of noscitur a sociis to the tariff entries under heading 6115 of Customs Tariff one finds that the garments/articles covered therein, viz socks, stockings, tights, would only be those that cling to the body and are stretchable. The products impugned herein are quite different from the articles enumerated under heading 6115 of Customs Tariff;
(iv) Applying the same principle, the articles covered under heading 6108 of Customs Tariff are "Women's and girls' slips, petticoats, briefs, panties, night dress, Pyjamas, bathrobes, dressing gowns and similar articles etc., The nature of the goods covered under this heading is either inner-wear or garments used in bath or bed, i.e., meant for 'at-home' wear;
(v) On the other hand, Tariff headings 6104 and 6204 of Customs Tariff cover trousers specifically and the goods 14 C/52255/2019 & Others enumerated thereunder are for formal wear, e.g., suits, ensembles, dresses, skirts, divided skirts. The former heading covers articles made of synthetic fibre (e.g., Polyester fibre) and the latter covers articles made of other fibres, which includes viscose fibre;
(vi) Accordingly, garments of variety viz., 'MNS-LBK' are trousers made of knitted polyester/ polyurethane fabrics. These are rightly classifiable under CTI 6104 63 00. Garments of "HQ-Z" series are trousers made of viscose fibre, and are rightly classifiable under CTI 6204 69 90;
(vii) Next comes the question of invoking extended period of limitation. The SCN is dated 9/6/2017. Out of the 13 Bills of Entry 9 are filed between March, 2016 and 13th May 2016 when the normal period was 1 year. From 14/5/2016, the normal period of limitation was increased to 2 years. This time limit applies to the remaining 4 Bills of Entry 2 filed by Sahi Trading,1 each by Kay Pee Enterprises and Good Luck Trading. Thus, for Sahi Trading, the amount of duty demand within normal time is Rs.47.98 Lakhs, that for Kay Pee Enterprises is Rs.12.78 Lakhs and that for Good Luck Trading is Rs. 22.87 Lakhs. These amounts are any way recoverable as they within the normal period of limitation;
(viii) Statements given by Shri Sanjay Puri, the mastermind of the operations and other partners, particularly Shri Amit Malhotra indicated that the samples examined were 15 C/52255/2019 & Others representative of the goods imported by the aforesaid five firms and that Shri Puri was looking after the import work for all the firms. Shri Puri refused to comment about the reports of the Committee. Statements of Shri Sanjay Puri have been corroborated by all others. However, he also routinely retracted some of his statements 2 to 4 months after they were recorded. Such retractions were investigated and found to be baseless. Nevertheless, he had confirmed the averments made earlier even after the retraction;
(ix) Scrutiny of the records and investigations carried out indicated that the said importers had been importing Polyester Knitted Trousers and Viscose Woven Trousers under various consignments declared as Polyester Knitted Leggies/Pyjamas in the past;
(x) In respect of 12 out of 13 Bills of Entry, Girls trousers of "HQ-Z" series, made of viscose fibre were declared as 'Polyester Knitted Leggies/Pyjamas'. This constituted clear misdeclaration and contravention of the provisions of Section 46, thus attracting confiscation under section 111(m) and consequential penalties;
(xi) As per the import documents submitted by the appellant importers, the suppliers of the impugned garments were M/s.Sin Zhong Import and Export Pte. Ltd. Two Directors of this Company were Shri V.K.Thapar and his wife Ms. Tripta Thapar. The latter was a partner of one of the importer 16 C/52255/2019 & Others Appellants, namely, Good Luck Trading Co. Shri Thapar had been summoned several times but he did not appear to give his statement;
(xii) There was a deliberate default on the part of all the five importer appellants and invoking of extended period of limitation in terms of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act was just, legal and proper. Thus, the duty demands issued to the five appellants are fully justified;
(xiii) Consequently, the confiscation under Section 111(m), of goods worth Rs.3.32 Lakhs belonging to Sahi Trading and goods worth Rs.2.99 Lakhs belonging to Good Luck Trading and adjudging of fine in lieu of confiscation are fully justified;
(xiv) Considering the acts of commission and omission on the part of the five importer Appellants, imposition of penalties is fully justified;
(xv) The Appeal filed by the Department assails non-imposition of penalties on (i) M/s Sahi Trading Company, M/s Kay Pee Enterprises, M/s Universal Impex, M/s S.P. Enterprises and M/s Good Luck Trading under Section 112 (a) and (b) and 114AA of the Act (ii) Sarva Shri. Sanjay Puri, Amit Malhotra, Sanjay Malhotra and Vinod Kumar Thapar and Ms. Kiran Puri, Ms. Ashu Chopra and Ms. Tripta Thapar under Section 114A and 114AA of the Act. In view of the clear-cut findings recorded by the Commissioner in the 17 C/52255/2019 & Others impugned order, penalties ought to have been imposed on the 5 entities also under section 112(a). Reliance is placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Amritalakshmi Machine Works vs, CC, Mumbai19; (xvi) As regards imposition of penalties on Shri Sanjay Puri and Shri. V.K. Thapar, under Section 112 (a) of the Act, considering the role played by these individuals in the duty evasion resorted to by the aforesaid 5 firms, the Commissioner was in error in not imposing penalties; (xvii) The material disclosed in Paragraphs 10.2 and 10.3 of the SCN was sufficient to impose penalty under section 114AA of the Act on all the 5 entities and their partners and proprietor as also Shri Sanjay Puri and Shri. V.K. Thapar. Findings
24. We find that the following questions need to be answered in these appeals:
(a) Based on the available information and evidence, did the Revenue establish that the imported goods were girls trousers and not girls pyjamas?
(b) What is the nature of the classification of the imported goods and who can do it? Can an expert determine the classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff? 19
2016 (335) ELT 225 (Bom) 18 C/52255/2019 & Others
(c) Were the goods liable for confiscation under section 111(m)? If so, were the redemption fines imposed fair?
(d) Were the penalties imposed correct and fair?
(e) Did the Commissioner err in not imposing certain additional penalties under certain sections as indicated in Revenue's appeals? Pyjamas or trousers and what is the correct classification?
25. According to the declaration by the importers, the goods were girls pyjamas. It is not in dispute that the declarations in the Bills of Entry were as per the import documents. The goods were self-assessed by the importers considering them as pyjamas. The imported goods were also examined by the officers and cleared. The importers then sold the goods to others and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, DRI officers had not enquired from the buyers as to the nature of the goods that they bought.
26. Samples of the goods were produced by the learned counsel before us during the hearing. These samples were obtained from the importers and they were not drawn during investigation. After hearing, both sides were given time to make any additional written submissions. Along with his submissions, learned Special Counsel for the Revenue obtained the extra sets of the sealed samples drawn during investigation. We have opened these sealed samples. The garments in these are similar to the samples produced by the learned counsel for the appellant during hearing. Each garment was packed in an individual polythene packet with labels. All labels say that they are 'premium leggings'. Not one of the samples is labelled girls trousers. The 19 C/52255/2019 & Others irresistible conclusion is that they are known in the market and are sold to consumers as leggings and not as trousers. Since these are commonly used goods how they are known in common parlance assumes great importance. They are not known as trousers.
27. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that they were trousers primarily on the basis of test reports of the Textile Committee. While sending requests to test the 71 samples (in 56 envelopes), DRI also, requested the Textile Committee to 'send the correct CTH (Customs Tariff Heading) of the samples'. The Textile Committee replied that it cannot give the CTH and instead will provide HS (Harmonised System) classification. Thereafter, the Textile Committee by its letter dated 5.10.2016 returned the samples along with test reports. Two of these test reports were relied upon in the SCN as RUD 23 and RUD 24. RUD 23 has a test report TR No. 677/TC/SE/LDE/2016-17 dated 30.8.2016 and an Additional Test Report dated 21.9.2016, both referring to the same sample (Lab. Sample No. CUSCOO-596) sent along with the same test memo (No. 13/DEL/UI/GHEVRA-71/16 Marked- 13/1) sent under the cover of DRI's letter dated 6.7.2016 and received in the lab on 8.7.2016. The first test report dated 30.8.2016 indicates that the test was performed from 8.7.2016 to 30.8.2016 and gives the composition of the fabric but against 'HS Classification of Garment' it states "It is not possible to ascertain the correct measurement of the garment as during the testing procedure the sample got de-shaped and destructed; Hence cannot assess the HS Classification." Their report also has a remark that this parameter was subcontracted to EP&QA, Naraina (New Delhi). The additional test 20 C/52255/2019 & Others report dated 21.9.2016, signed by the same Assistant Director (Laboratory) refers to the same sample received on the same date with the same Test Memo and the covering letter of DRI but states that it was tested from 8.7.2016 to 21.9.2016 but gives a different report of the same parameter HS Classification of Garment and it says "In our opinion the submitted garment may be classified as "Polyester/Polyurethane Knitted Girls Trouser" under HS code 61.04.63". This report also remarks that this parameter was subcontracted to EP&QA, Naraina (New Delhi).
28. Thus, according to the above test report and additional test report, the sample received on 8.7.2016 was tested from 8.7.2016 to 30.8.2016 and the composition of the fabric was determined but determination of the nature of the garment and its HS classification was outsourced to EP & QA, Naraina (New Delhi) but it was not possible to determine the HS classification because the sample got de-shaped and destroyed during testing. Surprisingly, thereafter, based on the same sample, the same EP&QA to whom the determination of HS classification was outsourced again tested the same sample (which was de-shaped and destroyed earlier) for a longer period from 8.7.2016 to 21.9.2016 and the opinion in the test report is that the garment should be classified as 'Polyester/Polyurethane knitted girls trouser" under HS Code 61.04.63. It needs to be noted that the additional test report does not say that an extra sample had been received which they had examined and gave the additional report. It refers to the same sample which was received on 8.7.2016 which had already been destroyed during testing. It is not clear as to how the Textile Committee developed 21 C/52255/2019 & Others the expertise to determine the nature of the garment and HS Code, which was impossible to determine just 21 days before.
29. Similar is the case with the other test report which is RUD 24 to the SCN. The sample was received on 8.7.2016 and tested from 8.7.2016 to 30.8.2016 and the test report dated 30.8.2016 says "It is not possible to ascertain the correct measurement of the garment as during the testing procedure the sample got de-shaped and destructed; Hence cannot assess the HS Classification." Then the same sample received on the same date was tested from 8.7.2016 to 6.10.2016 and the HS classification of the garment was reported as "In our opinion, the submitted garment may be classified as "Viscose Woven Girls Trousers" under HS heading 62.04.69.
30. We do not find any credibility in the test reports or the opinion of the experts from Textile Committee who, having first found that it was not possible to determine the classification as the samples were destroyed during testing then continued testing the same samples (which were already destroyed) for another few weeks or months and gave opinion that the garments were trousers and that they were classifiable under a particular HS Code.
31. The test reports also do not indicate as to why the garments were not girls pyjamas or girls leggies, as described, and why they were instead girls trousers and what is the difference between the two. Even for this reason, we find that no reliance can be placed on such opinions.
32. The disputed garments were not 'girls trousers' according to the import documents, invoices, etc. There is nothing on record to show 22 C/52255/2019 & Others that any investigation was conducted to ascertain how those goods were sold by the importer after import. The packings of individual garments as per the samples presented before us by both sides also do not indicate anywhere that they are 'girls trousers'. Thus, the they are not being sold as 'girls trousers' to the ultimate consumers. Thus, they are not 'girls trousers' as per trade parlance. As per the original test reports also, this parameter could not be determined. It is only the additional test reports submitted on the basis of the same samples which were already destroyed during testing, that the expert from the Textile Committee formed an opinion that they were 'girls trousers'.
33. In view of the above, the finding in the impugned order that that the garments in question were 'girls trousers' cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside as it is primarily based on the revised subjective opinion of an expert contrary to the overwhelming documentary evidence and the packing of individual garments, none of which call them trousers.
Classification under Customs Tariff Heading and who is competent to decide it
34. Goods imported into India are chargeable to duties at the rates specified in the Customs Tariff (Section 12). The Customs Tariff classifies all goods into Sections (numbered with Roman numerals) and each section into Chapters (two-digit numbers). Within each Chapter, goods are classified into four-digit headings and further into six-digit sub-headings and still further into eight-digit Customs Tariff Items. Rates of duty are specified against each.
23
C/52255/2019 & Others
35. To assess duty on the imported goods, they must be classified, their values determined and appropriate rate of duty determined and exemption notifications, if any, must be applied. 'Assessment' is defined in section 2(2) as follows:
"assessment" means determination of the dutiability of any goods and the amount of duty, tax, cess or any other sum so payable, if any, under this Act or under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Tariff Act) or under any other law for the time being in force, with reference to--
(a) the tariff classification of such goods as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act;
(b) the value of such goods as determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Customs Tariff Act;
(c) exemption or concession of duty, tax, cess or any other sum, consequent upon any notification issued therefor under this Act or under the Customs Tariff Act or under any other law for the time being in force;
(d) the quantity, weight, volume, measurement or other specifics where such duty, tax, cess or any other sum is leviable on the basis of the quantity, weight, volume, measurement or other specifics of such goods;
(e) the origin of such goods determined in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act or the rules made thereunder, if the amount of duty, tax, cess or any other sum is affected by the origin of such goods;
(f) any other specific factor which affects the duty, tax, cess or any other sum payable on such goods, and includes provisional assessment, self-assessment, re-
assessment and any assessment in which the duty assessed is nil;
36. Clearly, classification is a part of assessment and therefore, the person who is required to do the assessment is required to classify the goods. As per section 17 of the Customs Act, duty on imported goods must be self-assessed by the importer and then it can be re-assessed by the proper officer. Thereafter, if there is any appeal or a demand under section 28, the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority, tribunal or the courts determine the duty payable. Thus, classification of the goods must be done by the importer and can also be done by 24 C/52255/2019 & Others the proper officer, adjudicating authority, appellate authorities or courts. It is the considered opinion of the person classifying the goods and is not a matter of fact. It is a quasi-judicial decision and is appealable.
37. Classification of goods has to be done as per the Customs Tariff. The General Rules of Interpretation20 help in classifying the goods. Classification is not a matter of fact to be determined by an expert but a quasi-judicial matter to be decided as per the law.
38. The subjective opinion of the experts from the Textile Committee regarding the correct harmonised system (HS) classification of the imported goods is irrelevant. The adjudicating authority cannot classify the goods under Customs Tariff based on the opinion of an expert. An expert's opinion can be sought on the nature of the goods (say, nature of the fabric used, composition of fibres- natural or synthetic, etc.) However, the adjudicating authority cannot classify the goods because some expert opines so. He has to classify the goods as per the Customs Tariff read with the GRI. Nothing in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or the General Interpretation Rules of the Tariff or the Customs Act provides for classification based on the subjective opinion of any expert.
39. Classification is an appealable, quasi-judicial decision by the officers or authorities empowered to determine it. Either party aggrieved by the classification can appeal to the higher authority. An expert's opinion, is just his opinion and it is not an appealable order. If classification of the goods is left to experts, it will cause utter chaos 20 GRI 25 C/52255/2019 & Others and confusion. One expert may classify the goods under one head and another expert may give a contrary opinion. Even otherwise, if there is anyone who really has the expertise in classifying goods, it will be the appraising officer and Assistant/Deputy Commissioner dealing with the group in the Custom House who deal with classification of similar goods everyday.
40. Despite this legal position, in this case, DRI sought the opinion of the Textile Committee regarding the HS classification of the goods who initially declined to given their opinion because the samples were destroyed during testing and after some days gave their opinion based on the samples which were already destroyed. Clearly, their opinion is irrelevant to classification of the goods which must be as per the GRI provided in the Customs Tariff.
41. We therefore, find that the department has not made out a case to re-classify the goods.
Confiscation under section 111(m) and imposition of redemption fines
42. Section 111(m) of the Customs Act provides for confiscation of goods which do not correspond in value or any material particular with the entry made under the Act, i.e, in the Bill of Entry. It reads as follows:
111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc.--The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation:--
(m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77 in respect thereof, or in the case of goods under 26 C/52255/2019 & Others transhipment, with the declaration for transhipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 54;
43. The impugned order holds that the imported goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and consequently, imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 112. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, even if the classification of the goods is decided against the appellant, it cannot be said that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) because the appellant self- assessed the goods classifying them under the Customs Tariff Heading, which, according to it, was correct. Since the goods were not liable to confiscation, no penalty could have been imposed under Section 112.
44. According to the Revenue, classification of goods by the appellant importer is part of the entry made under Section 46 of the Customs Act, i.e., the Bill of Entry and since the goods did not match this part of the Bill of Entry, the imported goods were squarely covered by and were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m). Since the goods were liable to confiscation, penalty can be imposed and was correctly imposed under Section 112.
45. We find that classification of the goods, their valuation and applying exemption notifications are all part of assessment. Thus, the Bill of Entry has factual elements such as the nature of the goods, quality, quantity, weight, transaction value, country of origin, etc. which all need to be correctly declared and elements which are in the nature of the opinion of the importer such as classification of the goods, exemption notifications which apply, etc. While the facts are verifiable as correct or incorrect, opinions can differ. The importer may find that 27 C/52255/2019 & Others the goods are classifiable under one CTI, while the officer re-assessing the goods may classify them under a different CTI. If appealed against, different views can be taken at different levels of judicial hierarchy. Similar will be the case with the availability of the benefit of exemption notifications.
46. Insofar as the value is concerned, it could be partly factual and partly based on the opinions. The transaction value of the goods, whether there was any other consideration for sale and if the buyer and seller were related are matters of fact and the importer is bound to truthfully declare these and assess duty accordingly. However, the proper officer is empowered to reject the transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules and re-determine the value of the imported goods based on the value of the contemporaneous imports of identical goods, similar goods, etc., following Valuation Rules 4 to 9. It needs to be pointed out that the power to reject the transaction value under Rule 12 vests in the proper officer and not in the importer. The importer will also not have access to the values of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods by others. Therefore, the only way an importer can self-assess the duty on the imported goods is based on his own transaction value and any additional consideration which he may be paying.
47. It is impossible for the importer to predict if the proper officer will re-classify the goods and if the proper officer will reject the transaction value and re-determine the value based on contemporaneous imports or through other methods and what value the officer will fix. Nothing in the law requires an importer to anticipate what classification the proper 28 C/52255/2019 & Others officer will find proper for the goods and classify the goods or anticipate if the proper officer will reject the transaction value and anticipate what value he will determine and assess duty accordingly. In these appeals, even the proper officer did not dispute the classification. It is only the officers of DRI who disputed it based on the intelligence which they had collected and the subjective opinion of the Textile Committee.
48. If Section 111(m) of the Customs Act is read to mean that goods can be confiscated if the classification of the goods and the exemption notifications claimed by the importer self-assessing the duty under Section 17 and indicated in the Bill of Entry do not match the classification of the goods or the exemption notifications which the proper officer may apply during re-assessment or some post clearance opinion of DRI or Audit, it would result in absurd results. The importer cannot predict the mind of the proper officer much less, the minds of any DRI officers after the goods are cleared, and self-assess duty so as to conform to it. Insofar as the valuation is concerned, the importer is required to truthfully declare the transaction value, any additional consideration and relationship with the overseas seller. He is not required to predict whether the proper officer will value under Rule 12 and if so, what value he will determine. Lex non cogited impossibilia - the law does not compel one to do impossible things. If the classification and exemption notifications in the Bill of Entry do not match the views which the proper officer may take later during re- assessment or by DRI audit party, or in any other proceedings, the goods cannot be confiscated under Section 111(m). The case of the Revenue in these appeals are that the classification of the goods by the 29 C/52255/2019 & Others importer is not correct. Even if the classification was not correct, it does not render them liable to confiscation under Section 111(m). Similarly, there could be cases where, according to the Revenue, the exemption notification claimed during self-assessment will not be available to the imported goods. The importer self-assessing the goods must apply his mind when classifying the goods and the classification of the goods by the importer, even if it is not in conformity with the re-assessment by the proper officer or even if it is held to be not correct in any appellate proceedings does not render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m).
49. As far as the nature of the goods is concerned (whether they are girls trousers as held in the impugned order or not), we have already found that the opinion of the experts from the Textile Committee is contrary to how they are known in trade parlance as evidenced by the import documents and the retail packings. No reasons have been given in the reports of the expert as to why the goods were not girls leggings or girls pyjamas and why they should instead be called girls trousers. We also find that from the sample copies of Bills of Entry produced before us by the learned counsel that the goods were cleared by the Customs officers after examination. The entire case was built against the importers on the basis of 'intelligence received by DRI' and the unsubstantiated subjective opinion of the experts from the Textile Committee that they were girls trousers. Therefore, it cannot also be said that the nature of the goods was mis-declared and hence they were liable for confiscation under section 111(m). 30
C/52255/2019 & Others
50. We therefore, find that the confiscation of the goods under section 111(m) is not sustainable and needs to be set aside. The option of redeeming the goods on payment of redemption fines is redundant.
51. Penalty under section 112 can be imposed for any action which renders the goods liable to confiscation under section 111. It reads as follows:
"112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc.
- Any person,-
(a)who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or
(b)who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable,-
(i)in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty [not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees] whichever is the greater;
(ii)in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty [not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees,] whichever is the greater;
(iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereinafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty [not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees][whichever is the greater;
(iv)in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty [not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees],[whichever is the highest;
(v)in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty [not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest."
52. Since we have set aside the confiscation of the goods, we also set aside the consequential penalty under section 112. 31
C/52255/2019 & Others
53. Section 114AA provides for penalty for use of false or incorrect material in any declaration, statement or document produced for transaction of business under the Act. It reads as follows:
"Section 114AA Penalty for use of false and incorrect material--If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods."
54. We do not find that there was any false or incorrect declaration or material in these cases, let alone any evidence of such declaration being made knowingly or intentionally. The importers imported goods which were NOT known in the trade parlance as 'girls trousers' either in the import documents or on the individual packings of the goods but they were "girls trousers" only according to the intelligence collected by DRI and the opinion of the Textile Committee. There is not even a single piece of evidence that they were known as or were being sold as 'girls trousers'. The goods imported under the Bills of Entry were cleared at least in some cases after examination. The Textile Committee reports nowhere indicate as to why they were not 'girls pyjamas' or 'girls leggings' as evidenced from the documents but were 'girls trousers'. Thus, these are not cases of false declarations but merely cases where DRI and the Textile Committee hold a different opinion. Penalty under section 114AA cannot be imposed because the importers' declarations do not match with the subsequent opinions of DRI and the Textile Committee.
32
C/52255/2019 & Others
55. In the appeals filed by the Revenue, non-imposition of penalty under section 114A in the impugned order has been assailed. This section reads as follows:
"114A. Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases.--Where the duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or the interest has not been charged or paid or has been part paid or the duty or interest has been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, the person who is liable to pay the duty or interest, as the case may be, as determined under sub-section (8) of section 28 shall, also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty or interest so determined:
Provided that where such duty or interest, as the case may be, as determined under sub-section (8) of section 28, and the interest payable thereon under section 28AA, is paid within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order of the proper officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent. of the duty or interest, as the case may be, so determined:
Provided further that the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available subject to the condition that the amount of penalty so determined has also been paid within the period of thirty days referred to in that proviso:
Provided also that where the duty or interest determined to be payable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, for the purposes of this section, the duty or interest as reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account:
Provided also that in a case where the duty or interest determined to be payable is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the amount of the duty or the interest so increased, along with the interest payable thereon under section 28AA, and twenty-five per cent. of the consequential increase in penalty have also been paid within thirty days of the communication of the order by which such increase in the duty or interest takes effect:
Provided also that where any penalty has been levied under this section, no penalty shall be levied under section 112 or section 114.
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that--
(i) the provisions of this section shall also apply to cases in which the order determining the duty or interest under sub-
section (8) of section 28 relates to notices issued prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 (10 of 2000) receives the assent of the President;
(ii) any amount paid to the credit of the Central Government prior to the date of communication of the order referred to in the first proviso or the fourth proviso shall be adjusted against the total amount due from such person." 33
C/52255/2019 & Others
56. As we have already held in favour of the importers on merits regarding the declaration of the nature of the goods and their classification, there is no non-payment or short payment of duty. Consequently, no penalty can be imposed under section 114A.
57. To sum up:
(a) There is no evidence on record whatsoever that disputed goods were being sold or were sold or were known in trade parlance as "girls trousers". The intelligence received by DRI and the unsubstantiated subjective opinion of the Textile Committee after testing the samples which had already been destroyed are not sufficient to classify the goods as "girls trousers" as held in the impugned order.
(b) Classification of the goods is a part of assessment and is a quasi-judicial function to be performed by the importer, proper officers, adjudicating authority and appellate authorities as per the Customs Tariff read with the General Rules of Interpretation. While expert opinion may be sought on the nature of the goods, classification cannot be based on the opinion of the expert. The GRI do not provide for classification based on any opinion of any expert.
(c) Even if the classification of the goods in the Bills of Entry is not in conformity with the views of the proper officer or any other investigating agency or audit goods cannot be confiscated under section 111(m) because there is no mis- 34
C/52255/2019 & Others declaration (of any fact) but only classification as per the importer's opinion. Even if the classification is incorrect, the goods cannot be confiscated.
(d) Consequently, no penalty can be imposed under section 112.
(e) Penalties under section 114 A and 114AA also cannot be imposed as there was neither any short payment of duty nor any mis-declaration- let alone wilful mis-declaration.
58. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the importers and their partners/proprietors. The 24 appeals are disposed of as below:
i. Customs Appeal No. 52255 of 2019 filed by M/s. Sahi Trading Company is allowed and the demand, redemption fine and penalties imposed on it are set aside. ii. Customs Appeal No. 52470 of 2019 filed by M/s. Kay Pee Enterprises is allowed and the demand, redemption fine and penalties imposed on it are set aside.
iii. Customs Appeal No. 52482 of 2019 filed by M/s.
Universal Impex is allowed and the demand, redemption fine and penalties imposed on it are set aside. iv. Customs Appeal No. 52481 of 2019 filed by M/s. S P Enterprises is allowed and the demand, redemption fine and penalties imposed on it are set aside.35
C/52255/2019 & Others v. Customs Appeal No. 52479 of 2019 filed by M/s.
Goodluck Trading Co. is allowed and the demand, redemption fine and penalties imposed on it are set aside. vi. Customs Appeal No. 52474 of 2019 filed by Shri Sanjay Puri is allowed and the penalty imposed on him is set aside. vii. Customs Appeal No. 52472 of 2019 filed by Shri Amit Malhotra is allowed and the penalty imposed on him is set aside.
viii. Customs Appeal No. 52471 of 2019 filed by Shri Sanjay Malhotra is allowed and the penalty imposed on him is set aside.
ix. Customs Appeal No. 52476 of 2019 filed by Ms. Kiran Puri is allowed and the penalty imposed on her is set aside. x. Customs Appeal No. 52483 of 2019 filed by Ms. Ashu Chopra is allowed and the penalty imposed on her is set aside.
xi. Customs Appeal No. 52473 of 2019 filed by Ms. Tripta Thapar is allowed and the penalty imposed on her is set aside.
xii. Customs Appeal No. 52475 of 2019 filed by Shri Vinod Kumar Thapar is allowed and the penalty imposed on him is set aside.36
C/52255/2019 & Others xiii. Customs Appeals No. 52894 to 52905 of 2019 filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
[Order pronounced on 01/07/2024] (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (P. V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Tejo