TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal, upholds decision on re-export condition for redemption of imported steel wires.</h1> <h3>THE COMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Versus M/s. HBL POWER SYSTEMS LTD</h3> THE COMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Versus M/s. HBL POWER SYSTEMS LTD - 2019 (367) E.L.T. 154 (A. P.) Issues:1. Appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. Non-conformity of imported steel wires to prescribed standards.3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.4. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.5. Scope of Section 125 of the Customs Act regarding redemption of goods.6. Authority of the adjudicating authority to direct re-export of goods as a condition for redemption.7. Tribunal's decision to set aside the condition of re-export in the order-in-Original.8. Dismissal of the appeal and observations regarding the authority of the adjudicating authority.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was in response to the appeal made by the respondent against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-Original by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam. The issue arose from the non-conformity of imported steel wires to the standards specified under the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2015.2. The Additional Commissioner of Customs had directed the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the respondent. The matter was remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and re-adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, who confirmed the confiscation of goods and allowed redemption only for re-export on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 125 of the Act, along with an additional penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Act.3. The Tribunal held that the scope of Section 125 was limited, and the adjudicating authority did not have the power to compel re-export as a condition for redemption. The Tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent that the condition of re-export in the order-in-Original was set aside, emphasizing that the authority could either allow redemption on payment of fine or not allow redemption at all.4. The Senior Standing Counsel argued for the authority to direct re-export as a condition for redemption under Section 125, but the Court disagreed, stating that such a power must be explicitly conferred by the Act or Rules. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the authority could not direct re-export without specific statutory provisions.5. The Court clarified that its decision did not prevent the adjudicating authority from reconsidering the redemption of goods without the condition of re-export. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the issue of the authority to pass a fresh order on redemption without re-export was not examined and should not be addressed in the current proceedings under Section 130-A of the Act.6. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, closed any pending petitions, and made no order as to costs, emphasizing that the adjudicating authority could exercise its powers in accordance with the law, subject to the observations made in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
