TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....96/2018A dated 29.09.2020 calling upon the Appellant to Show cause as to why: a) The goods imported vide the 11 Bills of Entry should not be confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-compliance of the said notification issued by DGFT. b) Penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be levied on the importer for his acts of omission or commission and c) Redemption fine under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be levied on the goods in lieu of confiscation. 2. The Adjudicating authority vide his Order in Original No. KOL/CUS/GRI/ADC/PORT/91/2021 dated 17.12.2021, confiscated the goods u/s 111(d) of CA'62 and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 60,00,000. Besides, penalty of Rs.60,00,000 was imposed. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed by him on the ground that pre-deposit condition was not fulfilled. Being aggrieved the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant makes the preliminary submission about the issue of pre-deposit. He submits that since the consignments were held up, which are perishable items....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....till 05.08.2017 was categorised as free amended the import policy of Beans of the species Vigna Mungo (L) Hepper (Moong Dal) from free to restricted with annual (Fiscal Year) quota of 3 Lakhs MTs.Vide Notification No. 04/2015-2020 dated: 25.04.2018, the Yellow Peas under Exim code 07131000 was revised from free to restricted for a period of three months only, vide Notification No. 15/2015-2020 dated: 02.07.2018, the restriction on import of peas was extended for a further period of three months i.e. till 30.09.2018. By virtue of Notification No. 32/2015-2020 dated: 30.08.2018 import of peas restriction was further extended till 30.09.2018. Notification No. 37/2015-2020 dated: 28.09.2018 the restriction of import of peas classified under EXIM code. 07131000 (Including Yellow peas, Green peas, Dun peas and Kaspa peas) was further extended till 31.12.2018. Trade Notices No. 06/2018 and 12/2018 both dated: 18.05.2018 and 19/2018 dated: 05.07.2018 were also issued by DGFT setting out the procedure and implementation of the above Notifications. 5.2 In the meantime, the appellant being a regular importer of peas for trading purpose had a firm contract with the foreign suppl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... annexed as Annexure - D. 5.6 In the meantime, the importer in Chennai and other ports also filed separate application before the Jurisdictional High Courts and obtained similar Interim Orders and got the goods cleared. Since the issue involved was on all India basis, the Central Government due to multiplicity of proceedings, filed a transfer petition number 496509/2020 before the Honourable Supreme Court of India and all the petitions pending across various High Courts were transferred to the Apex Court. 5.7 The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Agricas LLP and Others vide Judgement dated: 26.08.2020, upheld the impugned notifications and rejected the challenge made by the importers inter alia stating that: "48. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned Notification and Trade Notices and reject the challenge made by the importers. The imports if any relying on Interim order(s) would be held to be contrary to the Notifications and Trade Notices issued under the FTDR Act and would be so dealt with under provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The writ petitions subject matter of the Transfer petitions, subject to above (what is not decided) are dismissed. Writ Petitions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld Advocate prays that even in the present case, the Redemption Fine and the Penalty imposed may kindly be reduced proportionately. 6. The LdA R appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the appellant has been a beneficiary by taking the course of free imports while fully knowing that the goods are falling under the Restricted category. He submits that since the appeal has been admitted at Tribunal, considering the deposit made in the initial stages to be sufficient for pre-deposit purposes, the objections about pre-deposit condition stands satisfied. He does not deny that the Rahul Agro Final Order referred to and cited and relied upon by the appellant is on similar issues. 7. We have gone through the Security Deposits made by the appellant, which is being reproduced for the convenience of reference : Sl. No. B/E No. B/E Date Fine Date Receipt No. Fine (in Rs.) Penalty Date Receipt No. Penalty (in Rs.) 1 2126171 20.02.2019 10.04.2019 047 655591 10.04.2019 048 327795 2 08.04.2019 008 3 2030198 12.02.2019 08.04.2019 004 670929 08....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed clearance provisionally subject to the appellants keeping security deposit of 10% of the assessable value towards probable fine and 10% of duty towards penalty. For the Assessable Value component of Rs.6,08,67,460, they have given security deposit of Rs.60,86,747 and for the Duty component of Rs.3,04,33,731, they have given security of Rs.30,43,374, as has been observed at Para 7 above. 11. The Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CC Ports Kolkata Vs Rahul Agro Industries vide Final Order No.76806/2024 dated 03.09.2024, dealing with identical issue, has held as under : 13. In that circumstances, it is to be seen that during the pendency of the proceedings, various authorities had considered the stay of operation of the impugned notification and in one such case the Adjudicating Authority i.e. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-Il, Chennai vide order dated 23.03.2020 has refrained from imposing redemption fine on the importer and a nominal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. 14. In the impugned order also, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has considered the submission made by the Respondent and proceeded to hold that redemption of final penalty are on higher sid....