TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted by the importer was issued by the Branch office of the Inspection Agency and therefore did not comply with the requirement as per para 5 (iii) of Public Notice No.152/2004 dated 19.10.2004. The said Public Notice incorporates Board's circular No.56/2004 dated 8.10.2004 which states that metal scraps in unshredded, compressed or loose form has to be accompanied with a pre-shipment inspection certificate as per the format in Annexure-I to Appendix-8 issued by any of the inspection and certification agencies given in Appendix 28 of the Hand Book of Procedures (Vol.II). The consignment was therefore subjected to 100% examination. The examination did not reveal any remnants of arms, ammunition or banned substances. The goods wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n taken to release the goods provisionally after making 100% examination of the goods. Accordingly, the goods have been subjected to 100% examination and there are no remnants of arms/ammunitions or any such banned items. The only reason for the authorities below to hold that goods are liable for confiscation is that the PSI certificate produced by the appellant is issued by the Branch office of the inspection agency listed under Appendix 28 of HBP and not the Agency itself. The said infraction is only a procedural one. It is not a case where the appellant had not produced any certificate at all. Ld. Counsel submitted that since the appellant has produced a certificate and even after examination of the goods, there is no report ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri.-Ahmd.), the certificate produced by the importer was disputed by Department as the same was issued by Denmark office instead of Benin office of the inspection agency. In the said case, the importer contended that Benin was a branch office which inspected the goods and the certificate was issued by Denmark which is the Head office. The Tribunal rejected the Department appeal. 8. Shri Shakti Iron & Steel Rerolling Mill Vs CC Kandla - 2014 (304) ELT 279 (Tri.-Ahmd) is another case where the very same issue of PSI certificate was analysed. As the goods were provisionally released after 100% examination and as the consignment did not contain arms or ammunitions or banned goods, the Tribunal set aside th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or these reasons, the imposition of redemption fine and penalty is legal and proper. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs CC Kolkata (supra) was relied by the Ld. A.R. to argue that PSI certificate is legal requirement and cannot be taken lightly or waived. Ld. A.R. prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 12. Heard both sides. 13. The facts narrated above establish that the appellant has not complied with the requirement of producing a Pre-Shipment Inspection certificate as required under para 2.32 of Hand Book of Procedures. The goods have been subjected to 100% examination. There are no remnants of arms or ammunitions or any banned substances. Ld. Counsel for appellant has relied upon various decisions ....