TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, vide subsequent impugned order dated 27.07.2023, the same Commissioner (Appeals) has partially set aside the Order-in-Order dated 07.04.2016 by setting aside the redemption fine but still retained the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of each Bill of Entry. The details of all the six appeals are given herein below in tabular form: Sl. No. Appeal No. Bill of Entry No. & Date Redemption Fine (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) 1. C/61792/2018 4511041 dated 08.03.2016 6,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 2. C/61792/2018 4511106 dated 08.03.2016 6,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 3. C/61792/2018 4511031 dated 08.03.2016 6,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 4. C/60607/2023 4386114 dated 26.02.2016 Nil 1,50,000/- 5. C/60608/2023 4386117 dated 26.02.2016 Nil 1,50,000/- 6. C/60609/2023 4386116 dated 26.02.2016 Nil 1,50,000/- Since the facts in all these appeals are identical, therefore, all the six appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. 2.1 Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant filed six bills of entry as mentioned in the table hereinabove for the import clearance of 'Prime Pre-painted Steel Coils (Non Alloy)' falli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, as per the department, the impugned goods had been imported in contravention to provisions of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 and hence the impugned goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.3 Thereafter, a query was raised in the EDI system to the appellant on 26.02.2016. In reply to the query, the appellant submitted that they have imported the impugned goods against the contract dated 31.12.2015 and have made advance payment to the extent of 20% of the contract price on 04.01.2016 and the balance payment of 80% have been made on 26.02.2016. The appellant further submitted that the notification dated 05.02.2016 issued by the DGFT is not applicable in their case, but in order to avoid demurrage and detention, they requested to dispense with the issuance of show cause notice and to pass the adjudication order. The adjudicating authority on the basis of the facts of the case vide the Orders-in-Original dated 07.04.2016 and 13.05.2016 confiscated the impugned goods under Section 111(d) and allowed to redeem on redemption fine of Rs.6,00,000/- each under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- each und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication, the appellant was entitled to pay duty on transaction value and therefore, assessed the goods accordingly under Section 17(1) of the Act. It was a case of bonafide belief of the appellant. The appellant also challenged the notification and the impugned orders before Hon'ble High Court. It was not a case of malafide intent to evade duty as all the facts were well within the knowledge of the department at the time of filing of bill of entry and at the time of self-assessment of goods. Query was raised in the EDI system and it was pointed out that notification dated 05.02.2016 is applicable. As per Section 17(2) of the Act, the proper officer may verify the entry made under Section 46 and self-assessment of the goods made under Section 17(1); and as per Section 17(3), the proper officer may require the importer to produce document or information whereby the duty leviable on the imported goods or as the case may be, can be ascertained. Further as per Section 17(4) of the Act, the proper officer may re-assess the duty leviable on such goods if self-assessment was not done correctly by the importer. The department had the power to examine/verify the assessment made by the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Raj Grow Impex LLP vs. Union of India - 2021 (377) ELT 145 (SC) M/s Agricas LLP vs. Union of India - 2020 (373) ELT 752 (SC) CC, Ludhiana vs. B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt Ltd - 2020 (371) ELT 592 (Tri. Chan.) 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused material on record; and also gone through the decisions relied upon by both the parties. I find that the short question involved in these appeals is whether the imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is legally sustainable in view of the fact that the appellant has already paid the Minimum Import Price (MIP) for the impugned goods as fixed vide Notification No. 38/2015-2020 dated 05.02.2016 issued by the DGFT, by which impugned goods cannot be imported with the value less than the Minimum Import Price (MIP). It is a fact that initially the appellant and other importers challenged the legality and validity of the notification dated. 05.02.2016 issued by the DGFT and but once the legality and validity of the said notification was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, the appellant paid the duty as per the said notification at Minimum Impor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a), has held in para 8 and 9 as under: "8. We find that this issue is no longer res-integra and the three Member Bench in the case of Asian Copiers [ 2015 ( 2 ) TMI 1221 - CESTAT New Delhi)] has, by a majority decision, decided that import of Multi Functional Digital Copiers prior to 05.06.2012 was not restricted. While deciding this matter, they have also considered the judgment of the Tribunal Chennai in the case of Unitech Enterprises [ 2012 (279) ELT 236 ( Tri. - Chennai ) ], relied upon by the Ld. DR. Respectfully following the ratio of this decision, we hold that the import of the impugned goods is not restricted and their confiscation under section 111(d) is not sustainable and needs to be set aside. We have also considered the argument of Ld. Counsel that confiscation was also on account of under valuation of the goods which has been conceded by the importer. A plain reading of the Order-in-Original shows that confiscation was held under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 which pertains to import in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions and not under section 111(m) which deals with confiscation for under valuation, etc. We, therefore, find that the confiscat....