TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition of redemption fine of Rs.6,00,000/- thereon and the imposition of penalty of Rs.10,38,396/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 1.1. The Appeal bearing No. C/75222/2022 has been filed by M/s. Aegis Logistics Limited, Plot No. - JL 168, Liquid Cargo Park, Dock Zone, Chiranjibpur, Haldia - 721 604, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant no. 2") against the Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS(Port)/AKR/316-317/2021 dated 23.03.2021 challenging the remanding of the case, insofar as it pertains to the appellant no. 2, by the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Custom House, Kolkata to the lower authority for de novo adjudication. 2. As both the appeals emanate from the same order, they are taken up together for decision by way of a common order. 3. The facts of the case are that the M/s. Vinayak Oil & Fat Pvt. Ltd. (appellant no. 1 herein) having address at Jalan Complex, (Industrial Estate), 29.5 Milestone, N.H 6, Village Baniara, P.O-Begri, DisttHowrah-711411 filed a Pumping Guarantee No. 1374/OIL/18P dated 27.11.2018, as amended on 30.11.2018, of the Vessel M.T Andrea Victory (Rotation No. 2210791/2018) through their representative CHA M/s Soma Cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies equivalent to the amount of Customs duty involved in respect of such excess quantity found, of Rs.10,38,396/- each, on the appellant no. 1 as well as the appellant no. 2, under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 5.3. The appellants challenged the above order before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide the impugned order, rejected the appeal filed by the appellant no. 1. As far as the appeal filed by the appellant no. 2 is concerned, he remanded the matter to the lower authority for de novo consideration, after setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A on the said appellant. 5.4. Aggrieved by the order of confiscation of goods and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty on them, as upheld vide the impugned order, the appellant no. 1 has filed the Appeal bearing No. C/75606/2021. Aggrieved by remanding of the matter to the lower authority to the extent it pertains to the appellant no. 2 vide the impugned order, the appellant no. 2 has preferred the Appeal bearing No. C/75222/2022. 6. In respect of the appeal filed by M/s. Vinayak Oil & Fat Pvt. Ltd. / appellant no. 1, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that the order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the appellant's appeal instead of remanding the same to the adjudicating authority thereby giving liberty to the adjudicating authority to revisit imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) & (b). Thus, it is the contention of the appellant no. 2 that the ld. first appellate authority has erred in remanding the matter to the lower authority for fresh adjudication, which is liable to be set aside. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the documents presented before us. 9. We find that the appellant no. 1, namely, M/s. Vinayak Oil & Fat Pvt. Ltd., filed the Bill of Entry No. 9224021 dated 12.12.2018 for clearance of 1453.650 M.T. of Crude Degummed Soya Bean Oil (CDSBO) on payment of duty upon import. It was informed by the custodian of the goods/appellant no. 2, namely, M/s. Aegis Logistics Ltd. that a quantity of 49,330 M.T. of oil was still in the tank. Accordingly, the appellant no. 1 brought three (03) tankers in the Customs Bonded Area. 10. From the records, it can be observed that the appellant no. 1 had not made any attempt to clear the goods in question which were found....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shore Tank, for which applicable Customs duty were not paid and Customs clearance by proper officer of the Customs were not granted, to the Tankers trucks which were provided by the importer. Hence, it is a case of violation of section 111(j), 111(1) & 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992 thus rendering the seized 45.189 MT of Crude Degummed Soya Bean Oil (CDSBO) of edible grade, for confiscation under the section 111(j), 111(1) & 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. The importer namely M/s Vinayak Oil & Fats Pvt. Ltd and the Custodian M/s Aegis Logistics Limited are also liable to penal action under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962." 12. In this regard, we find that the observation of the ld. adjudicating authority in the above mentioned paragraph is factually incorrect. We note that the appellant no. 1 has not made any effort to clear the excess quantity of crude oil (CDSBO) found in the shore tank. No corroborative evidence has been brought on record to prove collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellants either. In fact, it is on record that the custodian of the goods, M/s. Aegis Log....