TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of re- export only. He has relied on the decision of Tribunal Mumbai Bench in Final Order No. A/87587-87588/2018 dt. 24.09.2018. In the said case, the Tribunal after referring to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as various decisions have observed that no such condition that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export can be imposed. Further, in the case of HBL Power Systems Ltd. Vs CC Visakhapatnam 2018 (3620 ELT 856 (Tri.-Hyd.), similar view was taken. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under: "11. The scope of Section 125 of the Act is limited by the words in which it is framed and it is not open to the adjudicating authority or the Tribunal (who are creatures of the statute) to stretch, modify or restrict the scope of this Section; they are bound by it. Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts can and do examine the validity of the laws and subordinate legislations and pass judgments annulling or modifying them by neither 5 the officers nor the Tribunal, as creations of the statute cannot do so. This position has been explained clearly by the Honble Supreme Court in UOI v. Kirloskar Pneumatics Company 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demption. 13. In view of the above, we find that the condition in the Order-in- Original that the goods should be re-exported after redemption is liable to be set aside and we do so. 14. Appeal is allowed to the extent that the condition in the Order-in- Original that the goods should be re-exported after redemption is set aside." The aforesaid decision has been affirmed by Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court as reported in 2019 (367) ELT 154 (A.P). 6. After considering the facts as well as following the decisions cited above, I am of the view that order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export is unjustified. The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the direction by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods can be redeemed only re-export. As already directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the adjudicating authority shall quantify the redemption fine payable by the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No other interference is made in respect of the penalty imposed. The appeal is party allowed in above terms." 2. The brief facts as noted by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the bonded customs warehouse until now and therefore, the Revenue has even demanded demurrage from the Assessee/importer, the present Appellant, and on account of failure to pay the same, the goods have not been released so far. Section 125 of the Customs Act is quoted below for ready reference:- "Section 125 - Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. (1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods [or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized,] an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. (2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is impos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment, for no fault of importer but, for which, the Department sought to levy demurrage charges on the importer. A waiver application, as permitted in law, was therefore moved by the Assessee importer vide his communication dated 21 August 2020, under the directions of the court. However, that waiver application has been rejected by the said Authority Mr.R.Dinakaran, on a wrong premise and which is factually incorrect. Apparently, there was no fault on the part of the Importer in goods lying there and because of illegal confiscation earlier and condition of re-export imposed later by the First Appellate Authority, the Assessee had to litigate further and is required to continuously do so, having been dragged by Revenue in this CMA filed by Revenue. 3. Therefore, Mr.R.Dinakaran, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Group4, Chennai-II, is directed to file his own Affidavit and appear in court and show cause as to why proceedings for perjury should not be initiated against him, for taking a factually incorrect stand in his letter dated 9 September 2020 before the Court about the goods having not been confiscated and therefore, levy of demurrage was justified and could not be wai....