TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re that the appellant is imported Steel products namely, 'Mil Steel Pre Painted PPGI Coils" and filed bill of entry bearing No. 7702841 dated 05.12.2016 for import of 49.800 MT of the impugned goods falling under Chapter Heading 72107000 of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 by declaring CIF value 600$ per MT. The goods were imported from China under commercial invoice dated 20.10.2016 and under Bill of lading dated 31.10.2016; when the appellant filed bill of entry, a query was raised under EDI on 07.12.2016 and the appellant filed reply to the said query but the respondent did not accept the submissions of the appellant and held the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act and imposed redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 8,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s liable to pay duty on transaction value and accordingly, assessed the goods accordingly under Section 17(1) of the Act. He further submits that the said notification issued by DGFT was challenged by various importers before various High Courts and all the petitions were clubbed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to which the appellant was also a party. He further submits that the appellant had no malafide intent to evade duty and all the facts were well within the knowledge of the department at the time of filing of bill of entry and at the time of self-assessment of goods. He further submits that as per Section 17(2) of the Act, the proper officer may verify the entry made under Section 17(1) and as per Section 17(3), the proper officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.R. Trading Company Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. (Appeals-II) Bangalore reported in 2020 (372) ELT 388 (Tri.-Bang.) • Aggarwal Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Cus. Manglore reported in 2020 (373) ELT 280 (tri. Bang.) • Goyal Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Cus, Chennai reported in 2018 (359) ELT 236 (Tri. Chennai) • Jhon Deere India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Comm. Of Cus. (Preventive), Amritsar reported in 2018 (363) ELT 509 (Tri. Chennai). 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record, we find that it is a case where the appellant had a bonafide belief that he is liable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce (MIP) for the impugned goods as fixed vide Notification No. 38/2015-2020 dated 05.02.2016 issued by the DGFT, by which impugned goods cannot be imported with the value less than the Minimum Import Price (MIP). It is a fact that initially the appellant and other importers challenged the legality and validity of the notification dated. 05.02.2016 issued by the DGFT and but once the legality and validity of the said notification was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, the appellant paid the duty as per the said notification at Minimum Import Price (MIP) and did not question the same and only filed these appeals against the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 7. It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order dated 08.10.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the confiscation, hence the imposition of penalty is bad in law. 9. Further, I find that in the present case, there was no malafide intention to evade duty on the part of the appellant and hence, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable in view of the various decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant cited supra; particularly the decision of this Tribunal in the case of John Deere India Pvt Ltd (supra), wherein it has been held that when the issue relates to interpretation then the goods are not liable to confiscation and no redemption fine is imposable on the said goods and consequently no penalty is imposable on the appellant. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Pathange And Company (supra), has held in....