Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (3) TMI 842

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 read with Notification No. 6/2015-2020 dated 24.05.2019 and Trade Notice No. 27/2019-20 dated 29.07.2019 (restricting import thereof) and Notification No. 29/2015-2020 dated 28.08.2018 (restricting export thereof) restricted for import and export. After detail investigation, show cause notice was issued to the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 02.05.2021 ordered as under: (i) Reject the CTH 22072000 declared in the Bill of Entry and Shipping Bill and order to re-classify the same under CTH 22071000 (ii) Drop the proposal to confiscate the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. However confiscated the imported goods i.e 1900MTs. declared as Denatured Ethyl Alcohol under Section 111(m), gave an option to pay fine of Rs. 77,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 (iii) Imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,46,00,000/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) Imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on appellant under Section 114AA (v) Imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,00,00/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. (vi) Confiscation the export goods i.e 194....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or holding mis-declaration and consequent confiscation of goods. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty is completely unjustified and hence impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3.1 He also submits that the requirement of denaturation is laid down in Circular No. 02/2006 dated 10.01.2006. The circular is issued with reference to Section 24 of Customs Act, 1962 read with 'Denaturing of Sprit Rules, 1972' issued by the Ministry of Finance. As per the said circular, it is the importer who is required to make a request for denaturation. Once such a request is made, Para 1 envisaging clearance of denatured ethyl alcohol, para 6 laying down the necessity of maintaining uniformity of denaturing agents and para 7 stipulating BIS standards IS 4117-1973 may be adhered to for denaturation of imported ethyl alcohol, will come into play. In this case the goods were never meant for consumption in India and hence, the appellant was not required to make a request for denaturation in the first place. 3.2 He also submits that neither the rules nor Circular could have compelled the Appellant to make such a request nor the charges of mis-declaration can be hurled against them for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on board the vessel as part of one original lot of 38,386.137 MT. as Galveston Tx, USA on 27.10.2020. The same is also corroborated by the authorized representative of appellant in his statement recorded by the officer in the course of inquiry. In the absence of any contra-evidence -documentary or oral gathered from master or shipping agent or any other source pointing to incorrectness of above date, the allegation and finding that date of loading mentioned in the bill of lading is incorrect is devoid of any legal justification. 3.6 He also submits that reliance placed on 'Commercial Certificate of Quality' No. LABORATORY JOB NO.DP 20-11252.004 dated 29.10.2020 where goods were mentioned as 'Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol' is misplaced inasmuch as the said invoice was issued prior to denaturation at the Galveston anchorage. After arrival into India, the Chemical Examiner of Custom House Laboratory at Kandla has certified that goods have been denatured with Bitrex/Denatonium Benzoate. 04. Shri Rajesh Agarwal, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the finding in the impugned order. 05. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er use, ethyl alcohol requires to be denatured before clearance. For denaturing, of ethyl alcohol, it is treated with certain chemical agents such as, wood naphtha, methanol, acetone, pyridine, aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene etc.) and coloring matter (HSN notes for Heading 2207 refer). 3. The Board has been apprised of divergence in practice regarding choice of denaturants at different ports. At some ports, Public Notices have been issued by Commissioner of Customs stating that the importers must use only the denaturants specified under BIS Standard (IS 4117-1973) in order to avail of benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 50). On the other hand, some ports are allowing use of denaturants specified by the respective State Excise Department and many such denaturants do not find mention in the list of denaturants approved by BIS. 4. The contention of many importers who insist on following State Excise standards for denaturation is that it is the State Excise which has final say in the matter relating to alcohol and in case of any mismatch between the procedures prescribed by the Central Govt. and the State Govt., those pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2021 has also confirmed that goods imported by Appellant for re-export is mixed (denatured) with substance called Bitrex/Denatured Benzoate. Further there is no allegation against the Appellant that goods are fit for drinking. Hence, under the undisputed facts and circumstances where goods have been permitted to be deposited in bonded warehouse for re-export from the said warehouse and shipping bills have also been filed for export, allegation of mis-declaration of goods cannot be sustainable against the Appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the allegation of mis-declaration. 5.4 We also find that DGFT, New Delhi vide its clarification as discussed above clearly held that the provisions under Para 2.46(I)(a) of FTP, 2015-20 is not applicable in appellant's case. In such circumstance charges against the appellant that they have imported the goods in gross violation of restriction imposed under the FTP is not sustainable. Further there is no restriction imposed under the FTP on import and export of subject goods. Further, it is clear that confiscation under Section of the Act is permissible only when the goods have been imported in contrary to the prohibition under the Act or any ot....