TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s objection to the appeal filed by the Revenue praying that redemption fine and penalty be reduced. 3. The facts of the case are as under: "1. The issue involved in the present Appeal is Importation of Green Peas and Yellow Peas. As per the import policy under chapter 7 of ITC (HS) 2017, schedule-1 (Import Policy) the import of Pigeon peas (Cajanus Cajan) / Toor dal till 05.08.2017 and moong dal/Urad dal till 21.08.2017 and Urad/Moong in split and other forms till 05.08.2017 was categorized as free. 2. Initially notification no. 19/2015 dated: 05.08.2017 revised the Import policy of items of chapter 7 of the ITC (HS) 2017, schedule-1 with respect to Pigeon peas/ Toor dal from free to restricted with annual (Fiscal year) quota of 2 lak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld up. 6. Since all the consignments were detained by Customs, M/S. Rahul Agro Industries, challenged the validity of the Notifications and Trade Notices by virtue of which, the import of peas and pulses were made from "free" to "restricted" before the High Court, Rajasthan at Jaipur by Writ petition no. 27441 of 2018, making the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and DGFT as the respondents. 7. The Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan passed an interim order dated: 18.12.2018 which is reproduce as below; "This Court considering the prayer of the petitioner and keeping in mind the earller order passed, deems it proper to stay the operation and effect of impugned notification dated 25th April, 2018, 2nd July, 2018 (Annex 3 & 4) an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d: 28.01.2019 has been pleased to dismiss the said Special Leave. 9. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court now vide its judgment in the Union of India & Ors Vs. Agricas LLP & Ors [Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 496-509 of 2020 & Anr.] has upheld the validity of the impugned notifications, the import of the impugned goods is restricted and hence the impugned goods are liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Importer, for his act of importing the goods, which are llable for confiscation under the section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 has rendered the importer accountable for penalty under section 112(a) of the act ibid. 10. Thereafter based on the order of Honorable Supreme Court the respondents M/S. Rahu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ended by notification 37/2018-20 dated 28.09.2018. 9. Therefore, he prayed that as appellant has suffered detention and dumarage charges during the impugned period, moreover, the appellant was forced for litigation to release the goods in that circumstances, it is prayed that redemption fine and penalty be reduced. 10. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 11. We find that in this case the Ld. Authorized Representative has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Amman Dhall Mill Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, 2021 (376) E.L.T. 174(Ker.). In the said case the appellant did not challenge the notification and imports took place on 23.06.2020 which was almost two years of the operation of the notification n....