Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Rose Mary International vs Commissioner Of Customs-Tuticorin on 14 January, 2020
1
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. III
Customs Appeal No.41693 of 2019-SM
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.68/2019-TTN(CUS), dated 27.08.2019 passed by the
Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Aopeals), Tiruchirapalli)
M/s. Rose Mary International, : Appellant
No.8, 23rd Cross,
Cubbonpet,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
Karnataka.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs, : Respondent
Customs House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin - 628 004.
APPEARANCE:
Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Sridevi T, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 40148/2020 DATE OF HEARING: 14.01.2020 DATE OF DECISION: 14.01.2020 The appellants imported 10,000 kgs of Cloves of Indonesian origin declaring the value as Rs.52,95,790/-. The same was assessed to duty of Rs.5,70,621/-. The department after inspection of the goods ordered for testing by FSSAI and as it did not conform to the said Act directed for re-export of the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. Penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- under section 112(a) 2 of Customs Act, 1962 was also imposed. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who reduced the redemption fine to Rs.3,00,000/- and penalty to Rs.2,00,000/-. The appellants are thus before the Tribunal.
2. The learned counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj appeared and argued for the appellant. He submitted that the department has ordered for re-export of the goods, which the appellant is not challenging this appeal. The contest in the present appeal is confined to the redemption fine and penalty imposed. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal's Final Order No.41058/2019, dated 16.01.2019 to argue that no redemption fine can be imposed when there is a direction to re-export the goods. With regard to the penalty imposed, he submitted that the appellant has suffered much loss as the imported goods could not be cleared for home consumption. He prayed to have lenient view with regard to the penalty.
3. The learned Authorised Representative Ms. Sridevi T, appeared and argued for the department. She supported the contentions in the impugned order. It is stressed by her that since the goods are in the nature of food items, the redemption fine and penalty imposed are just and proper.
4. The issue is with regard to redemption fine and penalty imposed. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Arihant Groups vide Final Order No.41058/2019, dated 16.09.2019 had considered the very same issue with regard to redemption fine imposed for direction of re- export of goods. In para 5 of the said order, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in M/s. Sankar Pandi Vs Union of India reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T.635 (Mad.), which was upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in 2018 (360) E.L.T.A.214 (S.C.). Following the said decision, I am of the view that the redemption fine imposed for re-export of the goods cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which I hereby do.
35. The appellant has also contested the penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed. Taking into consideration that the goods have been re- exported, I am of the view that the penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed is on the higher side, which requires to be reduced. I, therefore, reduce the penalty to Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only]. The impugned order is modified to the above extent of setting aside the redemption fine and reducing the penalty to Rs,50,000/-. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) ksr 15-01-2020