M/S. Vanick Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E., Delhi-Iii
- CitationAppeal No.C/192/2008-CU[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not grant an adjournment merely because counsel is unavailable where the appellant's counsel had duly received notice of the hearing, and an appeal may be dismissed in such circumstances without a hearing on the merits. Where imported goods are found to fail mandatory food-safety standards and the consignment is substantial and capable of causing serious health hazards, an authority may order re-export on payment of redemption fine and penalty rather than absolute confiscation; a total of roughly ten per cent of the goods' value is not, in itself, excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary or perverse, and so provides no basis for appellate interference with the redemption fine and penalty imposed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Appeal No.C/192/2008-CU[DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.03/CUS/JM/07, dated 12.12.2007 passed by the C.C.E., Delhi-III]
M/s. Vanick Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Delhi-III Respondents
Appearance
Shri KK Sharma, Proxy Counsel - for the appellants
Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR - for the respondents
CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No.52029/2015, dated 01.04.2015
Per Mr. R.K. Singh:
Appeal was filed before CESTAT against Order-in-Original No.03/CUS/JM/07, dated 12.12.2007 passed by CCE, Delhi-III, who ordered confiscation of 323.55 MT of the imported goods namely bakery shortening valued at Rs.1,51,58,436/- and allowed re-export on redemption fine of Rs.10 lakhs; penalty of Rs.5 lakhs was also imposed. CESTAT, vide its order dated 27.03.2012 reduced the redemption fine to Rs.3.5 lakhs and set aside the penalty of Rs.5 lakhs. Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which vide order dated 21.03.2013 remanded the matter to CESTAT to examine the question as to whether the consignment in question was stray import warranting concession in redemption fine and penalty or not. In the light of Punjab & Haryana High Court order dated 21.03.2013, CESTAT vide its order dated 05.02.2014 considered the matter and rejected the appellants appeal and upheld the impugned order dated 12.12.2007. The appellant filed ROA Application on 21.03.2014 for recall of CESTAT order dated 05.02.2014, which CESTAT rejected vide its Miscellaneous Order dated 14.07.2014. The appellant filed an appeal before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which vide its order dated 05.09.2014 remanded the matter to CESTAT to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
2. When the case was called on 01.04.2015, we find no representation on behalf of the appellant, but a fax is received stating that Shri Naveen Jindal, ld. Advocate requested for adjournment. Shri KK Sharma, ld. proxy counsel also mentioned that Shri Naveen Jindal has requested for adjournment. We find that even when order dated 05.02.2014 was issued there was no one present on behalf of the appellant and plea was taken that the notice of hearing was not received. Today, again there is no representation although as is evident from the request for adjournment made the notice was duly received. Inconvenience of counsel is not a good enough ground granting adjournment in such cases in these circumstances.
3. We have perused the records. It is seen that the goods imported clearly failed to meet the required standards laid down under Item No.A19 of Appendix B of PFA Rules, 1955. It was not a small consignment. It weighed more than 323 MT. The goods related to food industry and had the consignment been cleared the use of such goods could have caused serious health hazards. Even in the wake of such serious violation, it is seen that the goods were not absolutely confiscated but allowed to be re-exported on redemption fine of Rs.10 lakhs and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs only was imposed. The redemption fine and penalty together come to about 10% of the value of the goods, which by no stretch of imagination can be called to be excess, unreasonable, arbitrary or perverse. Therefore, we find no reasonable ground warranting any appellate intervention in relation to the impugned order and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
SSK
-3-
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free