AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appeal is filed against order-in-appeal dated 27.2.2010.
The appellant filed a Bill of Entry No. 436490 dated 29.4.2009 for the goods viz ""Strong Nipper, Spiral Hose, Pinch of Pliers, Fixing Jig for Header
connecting pipe, Erichsen Testing Machine"" and declared value of Rs.37,69.710/-. On examination of the said goods, it was noticed that the goods
included 10 cylinders also the import of which required a ""No Objection Certificate"" from the Chief Controller of Explosives which the appellant could
not produce and therefore the primary adjudicating authority adjudicated the matter and allowed re-export of the same on a fine of Rs.55,000/- and
imposed penalty of Rs.11,000/-. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the fine and penalty were on the higher
side and that the accumulated demurrage charges of Rs.2,50,000/- had not been taken into account while imposing the fine. The Commissioner
(Appeals) observed that the appellant had admitted that the impugned goods (10 cylinders) required a NOC from the competent authority which was
not produced. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that the primary adjudicating authority had not calculated the margin of profit while imposing
fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order-in-
appeal reduced the redemption fine to Rs.25,000/- and penalty to Rs.5,000/-.
In its appeal before CESTAT, the appellant has pleaded that for the import of the said 10 cylinders valued at Rs.2,74,045/-, it applied for NOC to
the competent authority viz. Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur who declined to grant NOC without assigning any reason and consequently it
requested the Additional Commissioner of Customs that as it was not able to produce the NOC, the said goods may be allowed to be exported. In
these circumstances, the appellant contended that the redemption fine and penalty were too high and should be reduced and that on redemption fine,
the goods should be allowed for domestic clearance also and that the consignment has also incurred considerable demurrage.
When the case was taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant.
The Id. DR, on the other hand stated that the said goods cannot be allowed for domestic clearance on redemption fine as certificate from the Chief
Controller of Explosives was not produced. He also stated that the redemption fine and personal penalty have already been reduced by the
Commissioner (Appeals) to reasonable levels.
We have considered the contentions of the appellant in its appeal and also of Revenue. It is admitted that the impugned goods (10 cylinders)
required ""No Objection Certificate"" from the Chief Controller of Explosives for their import in the absence of which the goods were rightly confiscated
and allowed to be re-exported on redemption fine and penalty. Indeed the appellant itself requested for permission to re-export the goods which was
allowed by the primary adjudicating authority on fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the facts and circumstances reduced
the redemption fine and penalty from Rs.55,000/- and 11,000/- imposed by the primary adjudicating authority to Rs.25,000/- and 5,000/- respectively
for the goods (10 cylinders) valued at Rs.2,74,045/-. Having regard to the nature of goods which required No Objection Certificate for their import
from Chief Controller of Explosives, we are of the view that the said goods cannot be allowed into the domestic tariff area in the absence of the said
No Objection Certificate"" and also that the reduced redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) can by no stretch be called
unreasonable or arbitrary. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order-in- appeal. The appeal is dismissed.