TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 and, while permitting redemption thereof under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 on payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000, quantified the duty foregone as Rs. 17,03,618 which, along with applicable interest, was to be recovered under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 besides imposition of penalties under section 112 on all the three appellants, sustainability of detriments has been questioned on several mutually exclusive grounds of fact and law. Likewise, in the case of M/s Silicon Carbide Grinding Mills Pvt Ltd agaomst order [order-in-appeal no.2622 TO 2624(GR.VIID)/2014(JNCH) /EXP-122 To 124 dated 19th June 2014] of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - II rejecting their challenge to order of the original authority confiscating 1,00,000 kgs of 'naphthalene' valued at Rs. 27,75,466 under section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 and, while permitting redemption thereof under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 on payment of fine of Rs. 3,00,000, quantified the duty foregone as Rs. 9,34,973 which, along with applicable interest, was to be recovered under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts in brief are that M/s LRC Speciality Chemicals Pvt Ltd ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....962 with obligation to discharge duties foregone at the time of import too. 4. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Titan Medical Systems Pvt Ltd v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi [2003 (151) ELT 254 (SC), of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd [2021 (378) ELT 42 (Kar.)], and of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Autolite (India) Ltd v. Union of India [2003 (157) ELT 13 (Bom)] in support of arguments about jurisdiction to recover duties after statutory discharge of obligations had been acknowledged by the licensing authority. That recovery by recourse limited to section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 had limited coverage and only upon availability of goods for confiscation was canvassed by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre [2001 (132) ELT 257 (SC), in Fortis Hospital Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) [2015 (318) ELT 551 (SC)] and in Navayuga Engineering Co Ltd v. Union of India [2024 (390) ELT 3 (SC)]. It was further submitted, by placing reliance on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the goods and then to levy any duty or charge payable on such goods apart from the redemption fine that he intends to levy under sub-section (1) of that section." In this view of the matter the objection raised by the Centre that Section 28 of the Customs Act would be attracted is not sustainable.' 6. Since then, this declaration of law permitted recovery to be fastened on owner of goods as condition of redemption. Premising such recovery, absent invoking authority of section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 which, otherwise, is sole provision for recovery of duties not paid/short-paid at the time of import, contingent upon assessment having been completed but duty thereof foregone then. On behalf of appellant, it has been canvassed that such recovery is not fastenable when the goods were not only not available for confiscation but also acknowledged to be so on record . We do agree. However, upon goods not being available for redemption, the appellant may well ignore the offer to exercise option of redemption which, by discharging the importer from attendant obligation to pay duties, erases any prejudice thenceforth. That is exercise of agency with consequence thereof attached to the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment to contend that the imported material cannot be used for manufacture of shirts and that respondent has not discharged its export obligation by violating the conditions of the exemption Notification. In this connection, reference may be made to decision of the Supreme Court in Titan Medical Systems supra.' 9. In re Titan Medical Systems Pvt Ltd, it has been held that '13. As regards the contention that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification as they had misrepresented to the licensing authority, it was fairly admitted that there was no requirement, for issuance of a licence, that an applicant set out the quantity or value of the indigenous components which would be used in the manufacture. Undoubtedly, while applying for a licence, the appellants set out the components they would use and their value. However, the value was only an estimate. It is not the respondents' case that the components were not used. The only case is that the value which had been indicated in the application was very large whereas what was actually spent was a paltry amount. To be noted that the licensing authority having taken no steps to cancel the l....