Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Acc & Import) vs Valuable Properties Pvt. Ltd on 17 June, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. C/233, 234 and 235 of 2009 - Mum
Cross Objection No. C/33, 34 and 35 of 2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 241, 242 and 243/Mumbai III/2008 dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai III).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Commissioner of Customs (ACC & Import),
Mumbai
:
Appellants
Versus
Valuable Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance Shri Manish Mohan, SDR for Appellants Shri M.S. Murthy, Advocate for Respondents CORAM:
Honble Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 10.06.10 Date of Decision : 10.06.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue has filed these appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that in these cases, there is a violation of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Custom Officers cannot adjudicate such cases hence, appeals of the appellants were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents imported architecture model without the IEC number. The adjudicating authority held that the importer was not exempted from obtaining the IEC number and held the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d). Accordingly, the goods were confiscated with an option of redemption fine and penalties were imposed on the importer under Section 112(a). On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed all the three appeals of the respondents holding that the Custom provisions are not applicable to these cases. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is before me.
3. The learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that in this case it has been observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the importer has imported the goods without IEC No. which is mandatory for import and there is a violation of provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and as well as of the Customs Act, 1962. In support of his contention he relies on in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia vs. CC, Delhi 2003 (155) ELT) 422 (S.C.) wherein the Honble Apex Court has held that if the conditions prescribed for import and export of goods are not complied with, it would be considered as prohibited goods and the learned DR submitted that this is, therefore, import of prohibited goods for which the provisions of Customs Act are applicable and impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that they have imported the architectural models which have no commercial value and he further relied on the decision in the case of Laser Sight (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi 1999 (110) ELT 935 (Tri.) which was followed by in the case of Colby International Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi 2002 (147) ELT 928 (Tri. Del.) and submitted that obtaining of import and export code is a procedural requirement and the respondent has imported the goods for the first time so ignorance of all the formalities, hence lenient view be taken.
5 Heard both sides.
6. After hearing both sides, I find that in this case the respondents have imported the goods without IEC No. which is mandatory in the facts and circumstances of this case. As the goods are imported for violation of any act at the time of import the impugned goods becomes prohibited goods and the provisions of the Custom Act are applicable. The adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the goods and imposed penalty. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Further I find that in the case of Laser Sight (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held that this is a mere procedural and technical fault. Considering the fact that the respondent has imported the impugned goods for the first time, the Tribunal took a lenient view. Accordingly, I also take a lenient view and I reduce the penalty to Rs.1,000/- in each case.
7. Accordingly, Cross Objections filed by the respondents are also disposed of in the above manner.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3