TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submissions as made by the learned Authorized Representative for the appellant department and the reasons as stated in details in the Miscellaneous Application, I find that the appellant department have been able to place sufficient reasons for the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the Miscellaneous Application is allowed. 3. With the consent of the both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s.Al-Burhan International, 16, BRB Bose Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700001, the respondent/importer placed an order of 440 Units of Kerosene Water Pump Sets to the overseas supplier M/s.Changquing Bronico Electronic & Machinery Co.Ltd. China. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt vide their letter dated 09.02.2016. The importer/respondent gave their No Objection vide letter dated 08.04.2016 to get the import documents transferred in the name of M/s.Pan Asia Ventures, Nagaland. 7. The steamer Agent approached the department for necessary amendment of the Bill of Lading (BL) and Import General Manifest (IGM) which was earlier in the name of the importer/respondent. The importer/respondent received a summon issued under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to appear before Special Investigation Branch (SIB) on 09.09.2016 to give their explanation. The respondent submitted all the documents in their possession and gave statement of the actual facts. 8. The investigation authority also searched importer/respondent's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11.2016 imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the importer/respondent M/s.Al Burhan International under section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 which was not proposed in the show cause notice and allowed to amend description, quantity and importer of the goods. 11. The appellant Department had filed an appeal against the Orderin- Original before the Commissioner(Appeals), Kolkata as per direction given by the Reviewing Authority vide Review Order No.KOL/CUS/PORT/REVIEW/50/2016 dated 30.12.2016. The grounds of appeal taken by the appellant Department are as below: (i) Whether the adjudicating authority has erred not to confiscate the goods-200 Units of Portable Power Generator under section 111(d) and 111(f) of the Customs act, 1962 for hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017 had observed that the said Order-in-Original has already been set aside vide Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS(PORT)/AA/733/2017 dated 03.07.2017 which had been filed by the importer/respondent. 13. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 14. I find that the present importer M/s.Al Burhan International, Kolkata-700001 imported a consignment of 440 kerosene water pumps. They were yet to file a bill of entry to clear the consignment. During the same time, SIB was investigating into imports of portable power generators in garb of kerosene water pumps. They had registered a few cases and had issued an alert circular. In the instant case, the importer claims that after receipt of goods they received the import documents wherein they foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imple case of amendment of IGM. 17. I find that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) vide Order-in- Appeal No.KOL/CUS(PORT)/AA/733/2017 dated 03.07.2017 has dealt the entire issue in detail and allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Al-Burhan International (the appellant before him). 18. It is my considered view that redemption fine and penalty on Reexport of goods is not imposable under Sections 125 and 112 of Customs Act, 1962 when supplier confessed mistake and agreed to bear expenses for export due to wrong shipment by foreign supplier and no mala fide on part of respondent as has been held in the case of Regal Impex Vs. C.C., ICD, TKD, New Delhi, as reported in 2016 (332) E.L.T. 835 (Tri.-Del.). The Tribunal in this case has held that when goo....