TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & 7 which were declared as "Embroidery Machine 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in terms of Section 125 (a) of Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed on the importer under Section 112 (a) of the Act ibid. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove Para 1, on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the limited purpose of re-export at their (importer'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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon the following judgements : (i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akbar Badruddin Jiwani Vs. Collector reported in 1990 (47) ELT 161 (SC) (ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in 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 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese items. They further requested permission to re-export the goods mentioned at Sl.Nos.6 & 7. Before this Tribunal also, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that they are not contesting the classification, valuation or assessment or levy of differential 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 2384 of 2001 as reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 635 (Mad.) (Sankar Pandi v. Union of India). While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court passed the following order : "Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the appeal, by special leave is dismissed, keeping the question of law open." The Madras High Court in its impugned order had held that redemption fine is not imposable for improper importation of goods if such goods subsequently re-exported by the importer. However, penalty is required to be imposed for violation of the Customs Act. A report relating to grant of leave to appeal in this matter was reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. A87 (S.C.). 19. In the present case, it is also seen that on an earlier occasion, the very same goods were imported by the appellant-importer from the very same supplier through Nhava Sheva Port. The documents relating to the earlier imports have been furnished by the appellant and it is stated that they have been produced before the original authority also. Taking note of these....