AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of import of seafood for the purpose of export and trade. They filed Bill of Entry No. 2554712 dated 25/03/2019 for the clearance of 1000 packages of "Frozen Pangasius Fillet Untrimmed 100% Non IQF" with a declared assessable value of Rs. 26,17,367.81 which was purchased from M/s. Hung Phuc Thinh Foods Joint Stock Company, 09 Hung Vuong Street, My Tho Hamlet, My Quy Ward, Long Xuyen City, An Giang Province, Vietnam (hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor") under the sales contract No. 001/PTF-BM-2019 dated 01/02/2019. As per the contract the goods supplied was to be in compliance with the Indian Standards - Food safety Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulation, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the factual and legal position in proper perspective. He further submitted that the Order-in-Original was passed confiscating the goods and imposing redemption fine and penalty without issuing a show-cause notice to the appellant and thereby violating the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the imported goods are not liable to confiscation and redemption fine not imposable under the Act. He then referred to Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms Act and submitted that the import by the appellant is not in contrary to any prohibition imposed under the Act or any other law for the time being in force. He further submitted that the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act is unwarranted and therefore the imposition of redemption fine would also automatically be unwarranted and incorrect. He further submitted that for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act there is no basis because the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act is imposable only in case of goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Health Caps India Ltd. Vs. CC, Noida reported in 2018 (364) E.L.T. 815 (Tri.-Al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act is not legally justified. Here it is pertinent to reproduce Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, which reads as follows: "SECTION 111 Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation : - .............. (d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force; .............." Further, it is clear that confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act is permissible only when ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not contrary to any prohibition imposed under the Act or any other law for the time being in force. Hence, the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act is unwarranted and therefore the imposition and redemption fine is also unwarranted. Further, I find that the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act is also not warranted in the present case because the penalty under 112(a) of the Act is imposable only in case of goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. In this regard, I find that the facts of the present case are identical with that of Health Caps India Ltd. V. CC, Noida cited supra by the appellant wherein on similar facts the Hon'ble Tribunal held as under: "5. Having considered the rival....