TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods declared as demineralised fish scale from China and filed Bill of Entry No. 3765981 dated 16.12.2022. The Animal Quarantine Authorities denied the clearance of the imported goods and also it was found that the import was in violation of the provisions of paragraph 7(B) of General Notes regarding the Import Policy to the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020. Accordingly, the original authority confiscated the impugned goods and based on the request of the importer allowed them to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the sole purpose of re-export and also imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- on the importer under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal filed agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and circumstance of each case. The Board also clarified that in cases of bona fide mistakes, the re-exports will be permitted without imposition of penalty or with the nominal penalty. In the present case, as the appellant is a bona fide importer having taken all necessary precautions to see that the laws are not violated, the imposition of fine and penalty was totally unwarranted and therefore, is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the following judgments: * Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-II) Vs. Magal Engg. Tech Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (378) ELT 409 (Mad.) * Zenith Rubber & Plastic Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai 2010 (262) ELT 272 (Tri-Mumbai) * Sankar Pandi Vs. Union of India 2002 (141)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion whether redemption fine and penalty can be imposed while ordering for re-export of goods. 6.1 In the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs Elephanta Oil and Inds. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "19. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that respondent knowing fully well the import policy imported prohibited goods i.e. import of canalised item namely beef tallow and, therefore, the Collector was fully justified in imposing the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 6.2 In the case of NL Technologies PL Vs Commissioner of Customs Cochin (supra), the importer had imported electronic waste (e-waste), ordinarily means waste electronics/electrical goods or equipment's, which have become un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant OIE listed pathogens for fin fishes. It is only after testing, it was found that the product is not fit for consumption and hence, the Animal Quarantine Authority rejected the consignment. As rightly claimed by the appellant, since the import was based on the correct specifications, they could not be found fault with and the question of fine and penalty did not arise. The Board Circular No.100/2003-Cus dated 28.11.2003 (reproduced below) clearly states that depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner has the discretion to impose redemption fine and penalty, thus, implying that it is not necessary that in all cases redemption fine and penalties needs to be imposed. Especially in those cases, where the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion with the Reserve Bank of India who have opined that the "NOC" from RBI need not be insisted for re-export of such imported items. Therefore, the Commissioner may use his discretion and allow re-export without the requirement of a "No Objection Certificate" from the Reserve Bank of India, on payment of a nominal penalty or without any penalty as he deems fit, provided that he is satisfied that the goods have been imported as a result of bona fide mistake and contrary to the importer's instructions. 3. Kindly bring the above instructions to the knowledge of all concerned for strict compliance. 4. Hindi version will follow. 8. In the appellant's own case in similar set of facts for identical goods, this Tribunal held a....