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

....rade (powder)" from Taiwan. It was the case 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 whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reasons in the orders of the lower authorities, has 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 i....