TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant had vide Bill of Entry No.2731883 dated 28.09.2015 and 2818597 dated 06.10.2015 imported two consignments of old and used cut tiers in 2 & . 3 Pcs. (arisen from old/used tyres) for clearance to their Panipat Unit. 2.2 These B/Es were assessed and marked for examination with directions to ensure that the importer is an actual user and clearance of the goods was allowed provisionally on importer's request under P.D.Bond with directions to the importer to produce a valid MOEF permission and DGFT authorization. 2.3 The importer produced DGFT License No.0550003422 dated 23.07.2015 and MOEF Office Memorandum No.5- 22/2010-HSMD dated 08.04.2015 vide which 'No Objection' had been issued to M/s.Tinna Rubber & Infrastructure Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant. 2.8 Aggrieved appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of Original Authority. Aggrieved appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 We have heard Shri R.P. Jindal, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Manish Raj, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned Counsel submits that- * There is a bonafide error committed by them to the extent of permission which is in respect of Wada unit and not in respect of Panipat unit. * The said permission would be valid for Panipat Unit also as the importer/exporter provides materials to all 5 units from which they are producing. * In any case redemption fine and penalty imposed on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only for the intended use of recovery/manufacturing/recycling at the unit and the imported material shall not be sold further." This categorical mention of terms and conditions in MOEF's above O.M. put forward by the importer at the time of filing B/Es, permits import of goods for Wada plant only whereas B/Es were filed for Panipat plant, not covered by the said O.M. at all. The Joint Director, MOEF, New Delhi, further clarified vide office letter dated 02.02.2016 that if a company has imported material on the permission issued for a particular unit, the material cannot be diverted to any other unit for any purpose other than the one stated in the permission letter. Ample opportunities were given to the importer to put forth valid suppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced any permission/ document as claimed that in order to facilitate them, MOEF has been issuing them permissions repeatedly, clearly stating that they can import tyres scrap against permission granted for any specific unit which can be diverted and utilized by any other unit in case of need. This plea of the importer is not true. On the basis of above findings, it is clearly established that the appellant had imported the impugned goods without valid authorization from DGFT and permission from MOEF. 6.0 The permission of Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MOEF) and authorization from DGFT are the two prime and foremost requirements for import of restricted goods, such as Tyres Scrap into India and the importer faile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... quantum of redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Act, to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- is quite reasonable and justifiable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Since on the request of the importer and reposing trust in him, the goods were released on P.D.Bond, though the same were not validly imported and required to be re-exported at the cost of the importer. At the time of clearance, the importer was aware that he did not have valid documents for import, therefore, he executed P.D.Bond and assured to produce valid paper within prescribed time limit but he, not only failed to do so but also started resorting to pleas having no substance and truth in them, this clearly, is breach of trust for which he has appropriatel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he conditions of DGFT license has been valid for importation of these goods. Accordingly, the goods being not really importable or prohibited and has been rightly held liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, for the above violation penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Act. 4.4 The arguments advanced by the appellant counsel vis a vis the validity of permission issued in respect of Wada Unit, for the Panipat Unit we find that the concerned Ministry has clarified contrary to the said submission. The relevant correspondence whereby the submission made has been rejected is reproduced below: 4.5 We do not find any error in the impugned orders as the concerned Ministry has in respect of the sa....