2021 (3) TMI 937

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i) The appellant had filed Bill-of-Entry No. 8814143 dated 12.11.2018 for the import of 54,000 kgs of "Areca Nuts" from Sri Lanka valued at Rs. 1,59,21,409/- from the supplier namely, M/s. Central Traders, Sri Lanka. (ii) The Single Window Interface routed the above said Bill-of-Entry to PQ/FSSAI clearance as the imported goods is an edible product. (iii) The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India ('FSSAI' for short) rejected the above import cargo under Section 25(1)(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as the sample did not conform to the standards laid down under Regulation 2.3.55 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 vide its report NCC No. RNCC2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cal issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. O.M.S. Sivajothi Mills v. The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin in Customs Appeal No. 40784 of 2019 [Final Order No. 41028 of 2019 dated 22.08.2019 - CESTAT, Chennai]. Facts being identical, I am of the view that the above case would squarely apply to the case on hand. Relevant observations are as under: "7.2.1 Clearly, as the heading itself points out, the fine i.e., redemption fine, is an option in lieu of confiscation and hence, both cannot run simultaneously, which means redemption fine is leviable only as an alternative to confiscation. The appellant here in this case has not questioned the confiscation and hence, there is no option available to it. C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 111 and for this, I am of the opinion that abetment is not a criterion. Apparently, Clause (a) of Section 112 has two limbs - the first being "improper importation of goods by any person who, in relation to any goods ... would render such goods liable to confiscation"; and the second limb starts with "or abets the doing or omission or such an act." Hence, a mere importation that would render such goods liable to confiscation, as indicated above, is sufficient to attract penalty. Therefore, I am of the view that the case on hand gets covered under the mischief of Section 112 (a) ibid. 7.2 My above view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sankar Pandi Vs. Union of India reported in 20....