2021 (10) TMI 1187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Revenue that the said goods was an insecticide, the import of which was permitted only through designated ports; Cochin Port was not one of the designated ports as per the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Notification dt. 22/12/2017 and hence, the imported goods were liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Accordingly, Order-in-Original was passed ordering confiscation; however giving an option of redemption on payment of fine under Section 125 ibid and also imposing a penalty under Section 112(a) ibid. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin, who vide impugned order, has rejected the appellant's appeal against which the present appeal has been filed before ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as also relied on an order of New Delhi Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Rajhans Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Indore [2018(7) TMI 1300 - CESTAT New Delhi] to justify the levy of fine and penalty. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the Revenue has nowhere doubted the bona fides of the appellant. Moreover, Hon'ble High court of Kerala in its order dt. 12/04/2018 in Review Petition No.357 of 2018 in Writ Petition (C) No.9193/2018 filed by the appellant, has also directed the Revenue to examine whether the goods imported was an insecticide itself, in the following words : "5. In the light of the submissions made at the Bar, the issue whether the cargo imported is Copper Sulphate or Copper Sulphate Pentahydrate needs to....