Page 298 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

280 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2020 (373) E.L.T. 280 (Tri. - Bang.)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
[COURT NO. I]
Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J)
AGARWAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CUS., MANGALORE
Final Order No. A/20062/2020, dated 27-1-2020 in Appeal No. C/20172/2015-SM
Import - Misdeclaration of country of origin - Confiscation, redemp-
tion fine and penalty - Bitumen shipments loaded in Iran imported through
Karwar Port but UAE declared as country of origin - Bitumen not prohibited
goods either under Customs Act, 1962 or Foreign Trade Policy or any other law
in force at time of importation of goods - Importer filing bill of entry on basis
of documents supplied to him by supplier based at UAE - No document pro-
duced by Revenue on record to show involvement of importer in any way in
said misdeclaration - Preferential rate of duty not claimed by importer - Sec-
tions 111(d) and 111(m) ibid not applicable - No mala fide on part of assessee -
Penalty not imposable under Section 112(a) read with Section 114AA of Cus-
toms Act, 1962 - Order set aside. [2003 (157) E.L.T. 503 (Bom.), 2004 (174) E.L.T.
171 (Tribunal) relied on]. [paras 6, 7]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Kirti Sales Corpn. v. Commissioner — 2008 (232) E.L.T. 151 (Tribunal) — Referred ................... [Para 4.2]
Oriental Containers Ltd. v. Union of India — 2003 (157) E.L.T. 503 (Bom.) — Relied on ....... [Paras 4.2, 6]
Shree Ganesh International v. Commissioner— 2004 (174) E.L.T. 171 (Tribunal)
— Relied on ............................................................................................................................ [Paras 4.2, 6.1]
Trishla Steel Engg. Co. v. Commissioner — 2014 (313) E.L.T. 443 (Tribunal) — Referred .......... [Para 4.2]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
RBI Circular No. 31 (RBI/2010-11/335), dated 27-12-2010 ...................................................... [Paras 4.1, 4.2]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Venugopal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri P. Gopakumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - The present appeal is directed against the impugned order
dated 28-8-2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore, whereby
the Commissioner has imposed redemption fine and penalty on the appellant on
the ground that the ‘country of origin’ has been misdeclared in the bills of entry
by the appellant-importer.
2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellants are en-
gaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e., Bitumen, Bitumen Emulsion,
modified Bitumen, Water Proofing Components and Blown Bitumen, falling un-
der Chapter Heading No. 27 of CETA, 1985. The appellant were issued a show
cause notice dated 26-3-2014 wherein it has been, inter alia, alleged as follows :
(i) The investigation initiated by the Customs Preventive Unit, Cus-
toms Division, Karwar, revealed that certain bitumen shipments
loaded in Iran have been imported through the Karwar Port and

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  298