Betel nuts import appeal allowed after goods deteriorated in departmental custody, redemption fine waived due to negligence

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal concerning import of betel nuts from Bangladesh. The appellant sought re-export permission to Myanmar and deposited redemption fine, but goods deteriorated in departmental custody. The tribunal found the original order violated natural justice principles as it relied on a test report not mentioned in the show cause notice. Initial laboratory tests showed goods were fit for consumption, but subsequent deterioration occurred during prolonged storage without proper conditions. Citing Siemens Limited vs. Collector of Customs, the tribunal held no redemption fine or penalty was payable since goods were ordered for re-export but became unfit due to departmental negligence. The impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the confiscation of goods under section 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, and the option to re-export goods subject to payment of redemption fine.

Confiscation of Goods:
The Appellant, engaged in import and export of Beetle Nuts, imported goods from Bangladesh claiming SAPTA Certificate benefit. Dispute arose over valuation of goods due to price revision. Despite compliance with regulations, goods were not released timely by the Department. The Appellants challenged a notification fixing tariff value, which was upheld by the Calcutta High Court. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for confiscation under section 111(d) & 111(l) of the Customs Act. The Department referred to test reports indicating goods' non-conformance, leading to confiscation order. Appellants sought re-export, deposited redemption fine and penalty, and challenged the order.

Imposition of Penalty:
The Appellants argued against the imposition of penalty, citing lack of malafides and willingness to pay differential duty. They contended that the show cause notice did not mention the test report used to justify penalties, indicating a violation of natural justice principles. The perishable nature of goods due to improper storage conditions in Department's custody was highlighted, along with the lack of timely response to clearance requests. The Appellants were found not liable for penalties as the goods were not unfit for human consumption at the time of import.

Option to Re-export Goods:
The Appellants disputed the option to re-export goods subject to payment of redemption fine, citing legal precedents. They argued that as the goods were ordered to be re-exported, no redemption fine or duty should be payable. The Tribunal found in favor of the Appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

---