Page 258 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

304 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

October, 2018. The operative portion of the said order dated 18 October, 2018 is
as follows :-
“Considering an amount to Rs. 78,15,055.68/- to be a reasonable amount for
redeeming the goods, I allow the importer noticee to redeem the goods on
payment of redemption fine of Rs. 12 lakhs to be re-exported out of India.”
3. Aggrieved by the said order and the earlier order dated 23 August,
2018 appellant is before this Tribunal.
4. Heard the Learned Chartered Accountant Shri Kapil Vaish on behalf
of the appellant. He has submitted that earlier the Original Authority had held
that the goods were valued at around Rs. 38 lakhs and in the subsequent order
he has enhanced the value of the goods to around Rs. 78 lakhs and that the in-
voice along with the packing list which was enclosed to the self-assessed Bill of
Entry indicated CIF Value of goods to be Rs. 38,07,306.74/- and there was no
ground for enhancing the value. He has further submitted that under similar cir-
cumstances this Tribunal had allowed shifting of the goods to another port
through the procedure of transshipment to such a port where clearance of such
goods on import was allowed. He further stated that the said decision was in the
case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Industries v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Kanpur reported
at [2011 (272) E.L.T. 428 (Tri. - Del.)]. He further submitted that they are prepared
to transport the said goods to ICD Tughlakabad or ICD Patparganj whichever is
convenient to Customs Authority. He has further prayed for setting aside the
confiscation and setting aside the imposition of fine and penalty since the goods
were allowed for import in India and were not banned goods. He also contested
that the subject goods are authorized to be cleared at ICD, Dadri since they were
not medicaments and that medicaments were not authorized to be cleared at ICD
Dadri.
5. Heard Shri B.K. Jain, Learned Assistant Commissioner on behalf of
the Revenue. He has supported the impugned order.
6. Having considered submissions from both the sides and on perusal
of record, we note that Revenue has nowhere established that the said goods
were banned for import into India. We do not examine whether the subject
goods were authorized to be cleared at ICD Dadri because the appellant has opt-
ed to transship the goods at their cost to ICD Tughlakabad or ICD Patparganj.
We note that, Customs Act has provided for transshipment of imported goods to
the ports where import of such goods were allowed. We, therefore, hold that
goods imported by appellants were not banned goods and therefore, we set aside
the confiscation of the same. Once the confiscation is set aside, question of re-
demption fine and penalty does not arise. We, therefore, set aside the imposition
of redemption fine and penalty on the said goods. Further, we direct the Revenue
to allow transshipment of the said goods from ICD, Dadri to ICD, Tughlakabad
or ICD, Patparganj suitable to Customs organization at the cost borne by the im-
porter i.e. appellant. On transshipment, the Customs Authorities shall examine
subject goods for clearance to home consumption.
7. In above terms, we set aside the impugned orders and allow both the
appeals.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  274