2025 (11) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue (in total) Rs. 1,03,53,747/- imported vide Bills of Entry No. 6067676 dated 13.12.2019, 6382964 dated 07.01.2020, 5986872 dated 07.12.2019 and 5709117 dated 16.11.2019 under Section 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I impose a redemption fine amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the confiscated goods mentioned at (i) above. (iii) I confirm the demand and recovery of Customs duty of Rs.10.07,937/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Seven Only) and applicable interest thereon in respect of goods confiscated against M/s Royal Steel Trading under the provisions of Section 28(4) and Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  16.11.2019 Grade J3 Size: 0.19, 0.21 mm (W.B 600mmn)I   2.2 The respondent had availed exemption on the basis of self assessed duty under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act and claimed the benefit of Free Trade Agreement (FTA) under Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011 on the basis of Certificate of Origin purported to be issued by the Secretary General, Ministry International Trade and Industry Malaysia. They accordingly self-assessed duty in terms of Section 17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.3 On the basis of the verification conducted, it was found that Certificate of Origin was fake and was not issued by the concerned authority in Malaysia. A Show Cause Notice dated 06.12.2021 was issued to the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....002 clarifying that penalty under Section 114A of the Act should be equivalent to duty and interest both and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has erred in not imposing penalty on the interest amount also. I do not agree with the submissions of the Revenue in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Sony Sales Corporation 2021(376) ELT 472(Kar.) interpreting the provisions of Section 114A to say that the expression used is "or" and not "and" which is not interchangeable. The observations of the Court are quoted below:- 12. The aforesaid rule of statutory interpretation was referred to by Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and Others, AIR 2020 SC 1496. From perusal o....