TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hine Needles". As per the examination report, - (i) the items mentioned at Sl.No.6 & 7 of the Bill of Entry which were declared as "Embroidery Machine Needle" which were self-assessed and classified under Chapter 84485190 and self-assessed at the rate of 1.2 USD per kg was found to be 'sewing needles' of different brands. The said items attract ADD when imported from China vide Notification No.31/2017-Customs (ADD) dt. 22.06.2017. (ii) Glitter paper (1331 kgs.) mentioned at Sl.No.8 declared as "made up of paper" classified under 48239090 with declared value @ 0.4 USD per kg, appeared to be made of plastic. The declared value of the item also was found to be low. (iii) The item mentioned at Sl.No.10 i.e. EF 120 Electronic Card (2000 pcs) declared as 'Parts of Embroidery Machine' was classified under 84485900 and the unit price was declared @ USD 0.15 per piece. The said item appeared to be as 'PCB card for Embroidery Machine'. The declared value was found to be low. (iv) Stepping Motor (88 pcs) mentioned at Sl.No.11 classified under 84485900 and self-assessed at the rate of 12.5 USD per piece. (v) The item at Sl.No.2 declared as Plastic Balloon Pump, was found to be hand p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6. The above order was challenged by the appellant-importer by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who after hearing the appeal remanded the matter to the original authority as per Order-in-Appeal dated 16.10.2018 for redetermination of classification of Embroidery Machine Needle, the application of ADD thereof on goods at Sl.Nos.6 & 7 after seeking Chartered Engineer certificate. The department also filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 02.08.2018. The said appeal was filed on the ground that the differential duty worked out was Rs.49.16 lakhs and ADD was Rs.89 lakhs. The total amount of duty on the goods then worked out to be Rs.1.38 lakhs and it is beyond the jurisdictional power of Deputy Commissioner in terms of Board's Circular No.24/2011-Cus. dt. 31.05.2011. The said appeal filed by the Department came to be heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the remand of the appeal filed by the importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore took the view that the order passed by the original authority has merged with the order passed by him while remanding the mater to the original aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mporter's) own cost within 120 days from the receipt of this order. iv. I impose penalty of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) on the importer M/s.Shree Salasar Tools, Gujarat under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962." 9. Arguments for the appellant:- Ld. Counsel Shri B. Satish Sundar appeared for appellant. He submitted that the appellant is presently not challenging the classification, valuation or assessment or levy of duty by the original authority. The challenge in the present appeal is confined to the fine and penalty imposed in regard to goods mentioned in Sl.Nos.6 & 7 only. The original authority in the de novo adjudication had ordered for re-export of the goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs.6 lakhs for the limited purpose of redeeming the goods for re-export. A penalty of Rs.7 lakhs was also imposed. The appellant is contesting only the redemption fine and the penalty imposed. 10. He submitted that the order of imposition of redemption fine for re-export is unsustainable. When the goods are re-exported there is no relevancy to the market value of the goods, margin of profit, customs duty payable which are the parameters for fixation of redemption fine in ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. WIPRO Ltd. Reported in 2019 (368) ELT 901 (mad.) (iii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Novel Digital Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2015 (321) ELT 29 (Mad.) 12. Arguments for the Department :- Ld. A.R Shri R. Rajaraman appeared and argued for the Department. He adverted to para-14 of the impugned order. He submitted that as per Notification No.31/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 22.06.2017, ADD is applicable to sewing machine needles when imported from China PR. The scope of the product under consideration includes sewing machine needles meant for household and industrial purposes in various seizes and point style. So, Embroidery Machine Needles which are sewing machine needles attract ADD whether meant for household or industrial purposes. Accordingly, the classification of impugned goods mentioned at Sl.Nos.6 & 7 was rejected and reclassified the same from CTH 84485190 to CTH 84523090. Based on the notification, it was held that the goods attract ADD. The appellant had not only misdeclared and misclassified the goods at Sl.Nos.6 & 7 but there was mis-classification in respect of Sl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial duty. The contest in the present appeal is confined to imposition of redemption fine of Rs.6 lakhs and penalty imposed to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs. The original authority has given option to the importer to redeem the goods mentioned in Sl.Nos.6 & 7 for the purpose of re-export on payment of redemption fine of Rs.6 lakhs. Ld. Counsel has stressed that the goods having been not cleared for home consumption, the imposition of redemption fine is unwarranted. 17. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sankar Pandi Vs Union of India - 2002 (141) ELT 635 (Mad.) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siemens Ltd. Vs Collector of Customs - 1999 (113) ELT 776 (SC). The relevant paragraphs of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's order are reproduced as under : "[Order]. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this Writ Petition is aggrieved by the orders passed directing the petitioner to pay penalty regarding payment of redemption value for the articles which are brought from Singapore. Subsequently, the petitioner contended that he is no longer interested to take return for the purpose of use or consumption within India, but ....