TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1962 was given. In pursuance of the said order, the appellant removed the said goods from the Customs area to their refinery. 3. The Customs Department on receipt of information that certain imported goods which were not yet examined by the Customs officers were also removed by the appellant, visited the Vadinar port and conducted further enquiry into the matter. On completion of enquiry and investigation, it was noticed that one of the imported item Coker Fractionator was removed from the Customs area without examination and without obtaining any order under Section 47 of Customs Act, 1962. The Customs officers then visited the place where the Coker Fractionator was being transported and detained the same. Show Cause Notice was issued for the purpose of confiscation of such goods and also for imposition of penalty. The appellant herein contested the issue on merit before lower authorities. It was also the claim of the appellant before the adjudicating authority that there is no malafide as the duty liability under EPCG scheme has been discharged on the entire consignment of 64 packages. The adjudicating authority, after granting personal hearing to the appellant and considering t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Nicholas Carrier valued at Rs.1,00,000/- which was seized under the Panchnama, dt.06.07.2010 under Section 115 of Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to M/s Essar Oil Ltd, vadinar to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) in lieu of confiscation in terms of Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. The said option should be exercised within a period of 30 days of the receipt of this order, unless extended by the adjudicating authority. (iv) I hereby impose penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) on M/s Essar Oil Ltd., Vadinar under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. 4. Aggrieved by above reproduced order of the adjudicating authority, the appellants have filed this appeal for setting aside the confiscation of the Coker Fractionator as well as the conveyance viz. Nicholas Carrier of and also the penalties imposed. 5. Ld. Counsel would submit that the entire issue has been mis-conceived by the lower authorities. It is his submission that the appellant had imported certain capital goods for expansion of the refinery project at Vadinar Port and had claimed the benefit of EPCG scheme. It is his submission that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....racted only in the case where dutiable or prohibited goods are attempted to be removed from the Customs area without permission of the proper officer or contrary to such permission. It is his submission that the Bills of Entry as filed was assessed by the proper officer and duty liability was paid on 26.06.2010 and the entire operation of unloading of imported cargo was carried out under the supervision of preventive officers. It is his submission that an error got manifested further by the Departmental authorities also inasmuch as they did not mention which 40 packages were brought on to jetty as the endorsement on the back of the Bills of Entry indicated only 40 packages. It is his submission that there cannot be any fine or penalty in case of technical interactions and removal of Coker Fractionator from the Customs area, without out of charge order was inadvertent and unintentional and hence confiscation should not be ordered and for the same reason, penalty also should not be imposed on them. 6. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, would submit that the appellant being a company well aware of the law, should have got the consignment of Coker Fractionator properly examined before remov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was assessed and appropriate duty liability as has been assessed was discharged or paid by the appellant on 26.06.2010. 10. The issue involved in this case is out of 64 packages, one package of Coker Fractionator was found to have been removed from the Customs area without putting it up for examination before the authorities. 11. We find that the appellant herein had requested the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Jamnagar for shifting of project cargo lying on the vessel MV Combi Dock I. The office of Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Jamangar vide Letter No.VIII/48-02/TECH/2005-Pt.II, dt.15.06.2010, had specifically granted the following permission:- In this context, it is to state that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Customs Division, Jamanagar has granted permission as a special case as sought for by the Shipping Agent M/s Link Shipping & Management System Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and M/s Saikrupa Shipping Agency, Bharuch. However, I have been directed to communicate that the loading and unloading of cargo should be done under preventive supervision only. 12. It is undisputed that the steamer agent/shipping agent, as indicated in the above par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....less the context otherwise requires. (14) dutiable goods means any goods which are chargeable to duty and on which duty has not been paid. 16. It can be seen from the above reproduced Section that this Section talks about the definition of dutiable goods which would mean that the goods which are chargeable duty and on which the duty has not been paid and in order to get the goods confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(j), provisions of Section 2(14) needs also to be read and if read, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the duty liability on entire consignment was discharged before unloading of cargo. 17. We find that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jai AR Enterprises (supra) were considering a similar situation wherein it was held as under:- It is submitted that the subject goods were not prohibited, nor dutiable, nor overvalued and, therefore, the penalty provisions in clauses (i) to (v) under Section 112 are not applicable. Though learned SDR would concede the non-prohibited character of the goods, she has argued that the goods are dutiable in term....