M/S Astron Zinc Industries vs Commissioner Of Customs-Ahmedabad

[ Arising out of OIA-AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-238-2014-15 dtd 17.6.2014 Passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD ]

M/s Astron Zinc Industries - Appellant(s)

Vs.

Commissioner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD - Respondent(s)

Represented by

For Assessee : Shri Anil Gidwani, Consultant For Revenue : Shri S K Shukla, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon.ble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon.ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 5/5/2015

ORDER No. A/10506 / 2015 dtd 5/5/2015

Per : Mr. H K Thakur;

This appeal has been filed by the applicant against OIA-AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-238-2014-15 dtd 17.6.2014. The First Appellate Authority has upheld the OIO No. 27/ADC/O&A/2014 dtd 11.6.2014 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the First Appellate Authority has reduced the redemption fine of Rs 4.5 lacs and penalty of Rs 2.25 lacs imposed by the Adjudicating Authority to Rs 2.5 lacs (redemption fine) and Rs 1 lac with respect to penalty.

2. Shri Anil Gidwani (Consultant), appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant is regularly importing Zinc Scrub at ICD Khodiyar as per Cir. No. 35/2005-CUS dtd 22.8.2005. That the present consignment of 22 MT of Zinc Scrub was received from Dubai for ICD Sanand. That the appellant was a regular importer of Zinc Scrub, therefore, there was no mala fide intention in bringing the imported goods at ICD Sanand and no confiscation/redemption and imposition of penalty was attracted in the present proceedings. He relied upon the following case laws:

i) ITC Ltd Vs CC(A), Bangalore  2009(248)ELT.279 (Tri.Bang)

ii) Mool Chand Steels Pvt Ltd Vs CC Kandla  2006(206)ELT.793 (Tri.Del)

3. Shri S P Shukla, Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the following case laws :

i) Agarwal Metral Works Ltd Vs CCE - 2008(226)ELT.129 (Tri.Del.)

ii) Jindal Stainless Ltd Vs CCE New Delhi iii  2013(297)ELT.58 (Tri.Del.)

3.1 It was also argued by the Learned Authorised Representative that the appellant was a regular importer of Zinc Scrub at Khodiyar and never approached the department with any request that the consignment has wrongly being shipped to ICD Sanand. That department observed at the time of clearances only that it is not a permissible to be imported through ICD Sanand. Learned authorised Representative submitted that bill of entry has been filed by the appellant under self assessment system and department had no opportunity before the time of clearance to observe that the goods imported are not permissible to be cleared through ICD Sanand.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not Zinc Scrub imported by the appellant at the Port not authorised for the import of Zinc Scrub is liable to confiscation. The appellant argued that due to ignorance they were not aware that the Zinc Scrub cannot be imported through ICD Sanand. That Revenue should have allowed the transhipment of Zinc Scrub consignment to ICD Khodiyar where the appellant was regularly importing Zinc Scrub. In this regard, Learned Authorised Representative has correctly argued that the appellant was regularly importing Zinc Scrub at ICD Khodiyar and was aware of the permissibility of import of Zinc Scrub through ICD Khodiyar. The appellant was aware that the import of Zinc Scrub was not permissible through ICD Sanand and ignorance cannot be pleaded. Before filing of bill of entry, appellant had not requested for transhipment of imported consignment through ICD Khodiyar by which the bonafide of the appellant would have become cleare. Instead of asking for any such transhipment, appellant preferred to file Bill of Entry for Zinc Scrub at ICD Sanand which was not permissible ICD for clearance of Zinc Scrub. It is well settled proposition of law that ignorance of law is no excuse especially in the present proceedings when the appellant was a regular importer of Zinc Scrub imported through ICD Khodiyar. Accordingly, the imported goods Zinc Scrub through ICD Sanand have been correctly held to be liable to confiscation/redemption fine and imposition of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already extended sufficient benefits to the appellant by reducing the redemption fine from Rs 4.5 lacs, imposed by the Adjudicating Authority to Rs 2.5 lacs. Penalty imposed upon the appellant under section 12 of the Customs Act 1962 has also been substantially reduced from Rs 2.5 lacs to Rs 1 lac by the First Appellate Authority. In view of the above observations and the case laws relied upon by the Learned Authorised Representative, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Authority which is required to be upheld.

5. In view of the above, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed by upholding the OIA passed by the First Appellate Authority.

(Operative part pronounced in the Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical)

Swami

??

??

??

??

2