2017 (11) TMI 1834 - AT - Customs

Imported Betel Nuts Below Specified Value Not Prohibited

Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), W.B., Kolkata and Ors. Versus Gold International and Ors.

The Tribunal ruled that imported betel nuts below the specified value were not considered prohibited goods, setting aside the confiscation, redemption ... Prohibited goods or not - Betel Nuts - Confiscation - it was alleged that declared CIF value is less than ₹ 110 per Kilogram specified for Free Import by DGFT in the Notification No. 12(RE- 2013)/2009-2014 dt. 13/05/2013 - HELD THAT:- The question whether the betel nuts are liable for confiscation by declaring value which were lesser than the price fixed by the DGFT in the Notification, came up before the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of International Seaport Dredging Ltd. v. C.C. & S.T., Visakhapatnam [ 2016 (11) TMI 176 - CESTAT HYDERABAD ]. The Tribunal took the view that inasmuch as the goods were cleared after collecting duty on the basis of the tariff value, it cannot be held that the goods are prohibited. The betel nuts which were imported by declaring prices which were lesser than the minimum import price specified by the DGFT cannot be held as import of prohibited goods. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods is set aside along with the order for payment of redemption fine and penalty. However, the duty paid as per the tariff value is upheld - Appeal allowed in part. Issues Involved:Appeals filed by the department against Orders-in-Original, validity of confiscation of imported betel nuts below specified value, redemption fine and penalty imposition, applicability of Customs Act provisions.Analysis:The appeals were filed by the department against various Orders-in-Original. The assesses imported betel nuts from Bangladesh below the specified value set by the DGFT. The authorities held that the import was hit by relevant Notifications but allowed clearance on payment of duty while confiscating the goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The department contested the confiscation by filing appeals, arguing for higher redemption fine and penalty. On the other hand, the assesses claimed that confiscation was not valid, leading them to file Cross Objections and appeals. The Tribunal considered the case law precedent where goods cleared after paying duty based on tariff value were not deemed prohibited. Following this, the Tribunal ruled that the betel nuts imported below the specified value were not to be considered as prohibited goods. Consequently, the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty orders were set aside, while upholding the duty paid as per tariff value. All appeals and Cross Objections were disposed of accordingly.