TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The respondent has also filed cross 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nments of Green Peas/Yellow Peas through Kolkata Port which were held 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 ef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Special leave to Appeal (C) No. 1922/2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated: 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 ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to allow the goods to be released by staying the operation of the notification No. 4/2018-20 dated 25.04.2018 amended 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... restrictions only up to 30.06.2018 which was extended by notification dated 28.09.2018 which means that there is a gap of three months wherein restriction was not in operation for import of green peas. In that circumstances, the appellant has imported the goods from the foreign suppliers which were landed after extending restrictions. Further, the respondent approached the Hon'ble High Court and challenged the extention of restriction which was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, in that circumstances, although the goods are restricted as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court but for imposing redemption fine and penalty, a sympathetic view is to be taken. Therefore, we further reduce the redemption fine and penalty on the Respondent to Rs. 25,00,00....