TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Redemption Fine imposed in the Orders-in-Original. As all these appeals have a common issue, they are taken up together for decision by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. A.K Jain Sales and Marketing Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant"), had imported 4600 Cartons of Yogurt Flavoured Milk Drinks through Changrabandha LCS vide B/E No.: 6672215 dated 29.01.2020. Changrabandha is not one of the ports authorized for importation of livestock products, as per the Notification issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries in the Ministry of Agriculture under S.O.2666....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es imposed in all the Orders-inOriginal. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant against the upholding of the Redemption fines as imposed in the Orders-in-Original by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 3. The appellant has contended that the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has passed the impugned Order in a biased and wrong manner and hence, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. The appellant submits that the impugned Order is bad in the eyes of law and passed in wrong appreciation of facts and circumstances, without accepting the settled position of law and therefore the impugned Order is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is also their stand that the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redemption Fine imposed in this case. Accordingly, he prayed for rejecting the appeals filed by the appellant. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We observe that the appellant has imported "PRAN LASSI (Yogurt Flavored Drinks)" under CTH 04039090 which refers to the item as milk product as per the Customs Tariff. As per the procedure for import of livestock products into India, all live-stock products given in the SCHEDULE appended to the said Notification No. S.O. 2666, dated 16.10.2014 have to be imported only through the specified ports. For ready reference the provisions of the said S.O. is reproduced below: "(4) All livestock products shall be imported into India through the seaports airports located a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AQCS. The Joint Director, Institute of Animal Health & Veterinary Biological (IAH&VB), Kolkata has submitted their test report that all counts are within permissible limit. Thus, we find that the goods as such has satisfied all the legal requirements, except that the importation has taken place through an unauthorized port. We find that the same factual position is applicable to the imports made through all the bills of entry involved in the present appeals. 6.3. From the facts and evidence available on record, it is evident that the appellant was very well aware that Changrabandha LCS has not been authorized to import the livestock products as per the Notification issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of import of certain goods, there is restriction about the port at which the goods can be imported and in terms of the provisions of the licensing notes, the secondary/defective HR Coils could be imported only at the sea ports of Mumbai, Chennai or Kolkatta. The reason for this restriction would be that expertise for examination of such goods would be available only at the major ports and not at the every port. The import of the goods, in question, at ICD, Ludhiana, notwithstanding the fact that the procurement certificates issued by the Superintendent permitted their import at this ICD, is contrary to the ITC provisions. Therefore, I am of the view the goods have been correctly confiscated. However, looking to the circumstances of the c....