TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies on appellants and confiscated the goods which were physically not available and imposed redemption fine on M/s Expotec International Ltd. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details, are that M/s Expotec International Ltd., (herein after referred to as main appellant) imported 3 consignments which included pipe bending machines, parts of pipe line equipment and equipment for construction and for laying pipelines (herein after referred to as imported goods). The bills of entry were filed claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No.27/2002-Cus. Appellant discharged the concessional rate of duty of 15% with an undertaking that the imported goods will be re-exported within six m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....606/- covered by 3 B/E nos 850, 851 and 852, all dated 21.7.2003, are held liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods are not physically available for confiscation, I impose a fine of Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) on the importers in lieu of confiscation. 45. I impose a penalty of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s Expotec International Ltd. 46. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) on M/s Link Shipping and Management Systems Pvt. Ltd. for abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." 3. Learned Counsel would submit that the machinery has been re-exported is not in dispute; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to appreciate the correct position we reproduce the Notification:- Description of goods Limitations and conditions Extent of exemption (1) (2) (3) Machinery, equipment or tools, falling under Chapters 84, 85, 90 or any other Chapter of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975). the goods have been taken (1) on lease by the importer for use after importation; (2) the importer makes a declaration at the time of import that the goods are being imported tempo-rarily for execution of a contract; (3) the said goods are re-exported within six months of the date of importation or within such extended period not exceeding one year from the date of importation, as the Assistant Commissioner of Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o chargeable; in the case of goods which (ii) are re-exported after six months, but within one year, of the date of importation, so much of the duty of customs as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of thirty per cent. of the aggregate of the duties of customs, which would be leviable under the said Customs Act, 1962 or under any other law for the time being in force, read with any notification for the time being in force in respect of the duty so chargeable. 5.1 It is undisputed that appellant had availed the benefit of less duty of 15% as per the notification No.27/2002-Cus and given an undertaking that the machinery will be re-exported within six months. It is also undisputed that the machinery was exported beyond the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in respect of which the condition is not observed unless the non-observance of the condition was sanctioned by the proper officer; It can be seen from the above reproduced sub-Section, the violation which is alleged and upheld by the adjudicating authority is incorrect as the imported goods were cleared claiming exemption of notification 27/2002-Cus, were re-exported within one year as per the condition of the notification. Hence confiscation ordered by the adjudicating authority for the violation of the notification No.27/2002-Cus seems to be incorrect and not in accordance with the law. Since the imported goods are re-exported within one year of imported....