2018 (5) TMI 732

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The goods were rejected by the buyer on quality parameters and were therefore, returned to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed bill of entry no. 0061 dt. 09.03.2010 for import of the shipment of Caffeine (Anhydrous) which was exported under the above two shipping bills. The appellant availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 158/95-Customs dt. 14.11.1995 and executed a re-export bond equivalent to the assessable value of Rs. 99,88,002/- involving duty of Rs. 23,86,618/-. The goods were required to be re-exported within a period of six months from the date of clearance of the goods i.e. 12.03.2010. The appellant failed to re-export these goods within this stipulated period and was granted extension of six months on 10.03.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....et aside the demand under Section 28AB and also reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 8 lakhs and personal penalty to Rs. 12 lakhs. Aggrieved from the said order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant have filed this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits they are only challenging the redemption fine and personal penalty and they are not contesting the liability to pay duty. He contended that there was no intent to evade duty nor was there any illegal import. It was simply a case of non-payment of duty on the goods, which were diverted by the appellant and not exported. He drew attention to letter dt. 10.03.2011, granting them exemption for six months and claimed that the extension was given late to them due to which they could....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there was no scope of re-export of the goods as they had diverted the same. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6. I find that the appellant are not contesting their duty liability and are only challenging the confiscation of goods and personal penalty. The issue is therefore limited to the question of confiscation of goods and penalty imposed in the impugned order as liability of duty is not in dispute. It has been contended by the Ld. Advocate that there was no intent to evade customs duty and they had complied with the condition of re-export bond by depositing the duty quantified by the Department. The plea of the appellant is that the re-export could not take place because the permission to re-export the goods was giv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vident that the appellant mis-utilized the provisions of the said Notification. Accordingly, the goods were rightly held to be liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the appellant to penalty. 7.1 The appellant relied upon the cases of FAL Industries (supra), Philips (India) Ltd. (supra) and Meirs Pharma (India) Pvt Ltd. (supra) to contend that confiscation and penalty are not sustainable in their case. I find that in all the three decisions relied upon by the appellant, the appellant in those cases had come clean before the authorities that it was beyond their control to fulfil the export obligations because of various reasons and they had made sincere efforts to fulfil the export obligation. On the cont....