TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Paraquat Diochloride 42 % Technical" under Bill of Entry dated 15.05.2015 and 01.06.2012. The Bills of Entry were marked for verification by RMS system to Group-2 and a query was raised to the importer to furnish import documents including CIB & RC registration certificate. On perusal of the documents submitted it was seen that the goods were not imported directly from the manufacturer. 3. The check list for customs in case of import of pesticides (Annexure - 1) issued by CIB, Registration Committee vide it's 350th meeting held on 29.08.2014, which is communicated to field by CBEC vide letter dated 11.11.2014. (a) As insecticides, i.e., any substance included in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 1968 or any preparation containing anyone or more thereof, require mandatory registration under Section 9 by the Registration Committee, constituted under Section 5 of the said Act for insecticidal use or an import permit, issued by the same committee for non-insecticidal use. Therefore, no insecticide should be allowed to be imported without a valid Certificate of Registration or an Import Permit, issued by the Secretary, Central Insecticides Board & Registration Committee unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds with CIB & RC as prescribed in the manner under Insecticides Act. Therefore, the imported goods are to be treated as misbranded goods under the said Act. The goods imported appeared to be prohibited for import as per Section 2 (33) of Customs Act, 1962 and are thus liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer is also liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) Customs Act, 1962 for having rendered the said goods liable for confiscation. 5. Accordingly, Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant proposing to hold the goods as prohibited, to confiscate the goods under Section 111(d) and to impose penalties. After due process of law, the original authority ordered for confiscation of the goods. The importer was given an option to redeem the goods only for the purpose of re-export on payment of redemption fine. Penalty was also imposed under Section 112(a). Aggrieved by the redemption fine and penalties, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. counsel Shri S. Hari Radhakrishnan appeared and argued for the appellant. 7. It is submitted that the appellant is a regular importer of insecticides, and they also import various raw ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Central Insecticides Board is to be considered. 10. In respect of the import of Paraquat Dichloride the registration certificate issued to the appellant states that the insecticides shall be imported from M/s. Comlets Chemical Industrial Company Limited, Taiwan and that it should also be supplied by same company. In the present case, this condition is satisfied for the reason that M/s. Comlets Chemical Industrial Company Limited, Taiwan have actually manufactured the goods under import and have supplied these goods to the appellant through their authorizer distributor, M/s. Pacific Spot Ltd., Hong Kong. The Department does not dispute that M/s. Comlets Chemical Industrial Company Limited, Taiwan is the manufacturer. The appellant had produced commercial invoices dated April 2017, 2015 issued by the manufacturer, M/s. Comlets Chemical Industrial Company Limited, Taiwan, which clearly mentioned that the goods are to be delivered in Chennai, through their authorizer distributor. It can be reasonably inferred that there is no violation on the part of the appellant. 11. It is further argued that on perusal of the commercial invoices, it is very much clear that the goods were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y imposed. In the appellant's own case on the very same issue and import of identical goods, the Tribunal set aside the redemption fine and penalties. The discussion made by the Tribunal is as under:- "3.1 After hearing both the sides and after going through the impugned order, I find that as per the certificate of registration issued by the Central Insecticides Board, the appellant was permitted to import the goods from the manufacturer mentioned therein including M/s. Liyang Chemical Factory, Jiangsu Province, China. Instead of importing the goods directly from the manufacturer's factory, the same stands routed through their distributor M/s. HC Agro Chemicals Co. Ltd., China. I have been shown the commercial invoice raised by the manufacturer to the said distributor and the commercial invoice issued indicating that the goods are required to be shifted to Chennai, India. In the Bill of lading the appellant's name appears as the notified party and the name of the manufacturer has been shown as M/s. Jiangsu Tianrong Co. Ltd., China formerly known as M/s. Liyang Chemical Factory. As such, it is clear that the goods imported by the appellant were actually manufactured by M/s. Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certificate and even if it is there, it is too technical to be taken note of so as to penalize the assessee. 4. Further, in the case of Padia Sales Corporation v. C.C. - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 90 (Tribunal), the Tribunal has held that redemption fine imposition is not justified while permitting re-export of the goods. As I have already observed that there is no violation of the registration certificate and it is only a hyper technical objection taken by the Revenue, I find no reasons to sustain the impugned order imposing redemption fine and penalty on the assessee. The same is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant." 16. From the above order, it can be seen that the import was also made from manufacturer viz., M/s. Liyang Chemical Factory, China. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siemens Limmited Vs. Collector of Custom (supra) held that no redemption fine can be imposed when the goods are re-exported. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- "4. The appellant paid the redemption fine of Rupees Six lakhs. It was unable to re-export the goods within three months because of certain actions on the part of the Customs auth....