Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (11) TMI 733

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Entry No. 2924132 dated 06/08/2013 for certain Dietary supplements classifying the same under CTH 21061000 through CHA M/S R U Imports-Exports Pvt. Ltd. The Consignment was examined by the Inspector on first check basis on the directions of the Superintendent "Please open and examine 10% of the total no. of packages subject to a minimum of 2 packages and check declaration. Please verify that the goods are as per invoice, packing list, B/E and the B/L. Please ensure compliance to CCR/Target Intervention instructions before o/c. Please check NOC from PHO/FSSAI or check previous 5 NOC as per DGFT Circular No. 25/2004 and 37/2004 for PHO waiver." The consignment was examined and cleared with examination report bearing "O/E 10% of the Goods i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tant. For payment of duty the appellant No. 2 took a loan of Rs. 10 Lakhs from M/S Ranbir Finance Company and rest of the four lakhs were arranged by the CHA. He was not aware of the origin of the goods as no certificate of origin was available. That neither his firm was registered with FSSAI nor has obtained NOC prior to customs clearance of the goods. The appellant no. 2 voluntarily deposited Rs. 10 Lakh on account of anticipated adjudication levies. The appellant No. 1 is the Director of CHA firm who has undertaken the clearance work of the consignment that he was aware of requirement of NOC from FSSAI but he did not obtain and instead submitted five previous bills of entry in respect of same goods and same supplier for waiver; he has wr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edure under Circular 03/2011 which read as Section 25 of FSS Act, 2006 "25. All imports of articles of food to be subject to this Act. (1) No person shall import into India - (i) any unsafe or misbranded or sub-standard food or food containing extraneous matter; (ii) any article of food for the import of which a licence is required under any Act or rules or regulations, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; and (iii) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule or regulation made there under or any other Act." Para 7 of CBEC Circular No. 03/2011-Cus a) consignments of high risk food items, as listed in DGFT Po....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the nature of the food products, its source of origin as well as track record of the importers as well as information received from FSSAI from time to time. iii. In case, a sample drawn from a food item in a particular consignment ` fails to meet the prescribed standards, the Customs would place the import of the said consignment on alert, discontinue random checking for import of such food items and revert to the procedure of compulsory checking. The system of random sampling for import of such food items would be restored only if the test results of the samples drawn from the 5 consecutive consignments re-establish that the food items are in conformity with the prescribed standards. " 4. Vide impugned order, the learned Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Director of the CHA firm. Both the appellants have not adduced any evidences to disapprove the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. It has been submitted by Shri Anand Kadiyan that the penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962 should have been equivalent to the declared value of the import consignment rather than the market value of the import consignment. We find that the argument made by the appellant is not legally sustainable as the Customs Act under Section 112A provides that penalty under the Section should not exceed the value of the goods. Since, the import consignment falls under the category of the prohibited goods and it has also been found that the value declared by the importer is not correct. The seizure value of ....