2018 (8) TMI 709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the following. (i). M/s. Sapna Garments and M/s. Continental Exporters are ineligible for the benefit of exemption notification under 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 and the goods imported are liable for confiscation. (ii). M/s Sapna Garments are liable to pay duty of Rs. 3,01,873/- in respect of goods covered vide Bills of Entry 1821/18.02.2005, 1900/21.2.2005 and 2532/17.03.2005 along with interest. (iii). M/s Sapna Garments are to pay a fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), in lieu of confiscation and a pay a penalty of Rs. 1, 50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only). (iv). Goods valued at Rs. 15,43,568/- imported by M/s Continental Exporters (as shown in Work Sheet 2 to SCN)are liable for confiscation. (v). M/s Continental Exporters are liable to pay Duty of Rs. 16,93,841/- (Rupees Sixteen Ninety Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty One only) along with interest on the goods imported by them (as shown in Work Sheet 2 to SCN). (vi). M/s Continental Exporters are liable to pay a Fine of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only), in lieu of confiscation, and a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000 (Rupees Six Lakhs only). (vii). M/s Impex International ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....E.L.T. 22 (SC) c) Union of India Vs. Garware Nylons Ltd. - (1996) 10 SCC 413 d) Asian Paints India Ltd. Vs. CCE (1988) 2 SCC 470 e) Union of India Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. ECR C450 SC f) Continental Exporters Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 801 g) United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Collector of Customs Bombay and other - 1989 Supp (1) SCC 131 h) CCE Vs. Vicco Laboratories - (2005) 4 SCC 17 i) HCL Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - (2015) 10 SCC 532 j) CCE Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. - (2015) 10 SCC 742 3.6. The appellant submits that they have not mis-declared the goods. They relied upon the following case-law: a) Polyglass Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE - (2003) 4 SCC 762 b) Northern Plastic Ltd. Vs. CCE - (1986) 6 SCC 443 5. The learned DR justified the impugned order. She fairly conceded that there is no end-use condition attached to the Sl.No. 140 of the Notification No. 21/2002 However, she stated that the benefit is to be extended only to bona fide exporters and that the benefit will not be available to tag pins. 5.1. The learned DR further submitted that in the absence of copies of bills of entry she is unab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he purpose of identification or to give other information. (Oxford Dictionary) A small piece of paper, cloth or metal, on which there is information tied or stuck on to something larger. (Cambridge Dictionary) Tag is a small piece of card or cloth which is attached to an object or person and has information about the object or person on it. (Collins Dictionary) On the other hand Wikipedia defines the 'tag pins' to be a method a means of a economical elegant and easy way of attaching a tag t a government toys, articles, shoes, carpets, purses etc. either by the help of tag gun or just by hand. From the above, We understand that a 'tag' is a label or a card giving the particulars of the product, person, price etc. whereas a 'tag pin' is a link or a printed or a support with which the tag is attached or hanged to the object under sale or display. What has been produced before us during the hearing of the case appears to be 'tag pins' or 'Tag Loops' rather than 'Tag'. Therefore, it is to be concluded that what the importers had imported are 'tag pins' and or 'Tag Loops' are not 'tags'. It is also mentioned that the imported products contain any tag pin with the help of whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents and M/s. Continental Exporters have themselves filed the Bills of Entry. We find that the appellants have produced the certificates issued by AEPC. However, they have not given any details of exports made them in the past. The department too did not prove that they have not exported any goods albeit in the past. Though it was mentioned in the OIO and OIA that the appellants have sold the goods on high sea sales basis, they have themselves filed the bills of entry. However, it is not forthcoming whether the fact of high sea sales was suppressed from the Department. It is also not understood as to why the Department allowed the high sea sales to both Bills of Entry. We find that Commissioner (Appeals) has held that Notification No. 21/2002 conveys the intention of the Government to exempt the goods if imported by a bona fide exporters engaged in exports for use by him in the manufacture of export goods and not the goods imported for trading purpose. We see that such condition has not been built in a Notification. The only condition that is built is that the exemption is available to the items if listed therein provided the importer satisfies the conditions therein. As long as t....