Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Fujikon Overseas vs Nhava Sheva on 8 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPEAL NO: C/518/2004
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: 393 & 394/2003 MCH dated 18/12/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai I.]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
:
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
:
No
3.
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
:
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
:
Yes
Fujikon Overseas
Appellant
versus
Commissioner of Customs
Nhava Sheva
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri N.D. George, Advocate for the appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of hearing: 08/03/2016 Date of decision: 08/03/2016 ORDER NO: ____________________________ Per: M.V. Ravindran:
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: 393 & 394/2003 MCH dated 18/12/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai I.
2. On perusal of the records we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding redemption fine imposed by the lower authorities in lieu of the confiscation and the penalty imposed.
3. Learned counsel submits that they are only contesting redemption fine and the penalty imposed, on the ground that the goods imported were dried garlic and not fresh garlic.
4. On perusal of the records we find that the appellant had imported a consignment and declared them as white garlic. On examination, it was found by the lower authorities that the garlic were fresh garlic and not dried garlic. Accordingly, bill of entry and the tariff classification was amended and the duty liability was confirmed. The first appellate authority also did not agree with the contention raised as fresh garlic is restricted while dried garlic was freely importable during the period when the goods were imported by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Raisoni Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva 2011 (267) ELT 497 (Tri.-Mumbai).
5. We have considered the said judgment and find that in the said judgment the appellant therein had declared the goods imported from Pakistan as dried garlic but on test it was found that the goods were not dried garlic but fresh garlic. In the case in hand, we find that the appellant had never declared the consignment of garlic before the lower authorities as dried garlic, instead has declared the consignment as pure white garlic. In our view pure white garlic cannot be considered as dried garlic despite there being no samples drawn and tested.
6. In view of the foregoing, we find no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant. On perusal of the order-in-original, we find that the adjudicating authority has imposed a redemption fine of ` 1,30,000/- against the value of the consignment of approximately ` 5.26 lakhs, which in our considered view, seems to be excessive and ends of justice would be met if the redemption fine is reduced to `1 lakh as also the penalty from ` 30,000/- to ` 20,000/-.
7. The appeal is rejected subject to the modification as indicated herein above.
(Pronounced in Court) (C J Mathew) Member (Technical) (M V Ravindran) Member (Judicial) */as 4