Allowed

Jonree Equipments v. Kolkata(port)

CESTAT23 Feb 2024C/75853/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order enhancing redemption fine and penalty, holding that enhancement cannot occur once goods have been cleared for home consumption based on lower fines, affirming the original adjudicating authority's order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order enhancing redemption fine and penalty was set aside and the order of the adjudicating authority was affirmed.

Jonree Equipments vs Kolkata(port) — Banking and Recovery | CESTAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO.1

¶3

Customs Appeal No.75853 of 2019

¶4

(On behalf of Appellant)

¶5

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.Kol/Cus(Port)/10/2019 dated 21.01.2019 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Kolkata)

¶6

M/s Jonree Equipments

¶7

P-49,Benaras Road, Howrah-711105

¶8

Appellant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata

¶11

15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001

¶12

Respondent

¶13

APPERANCE :

¶14

Shri B.N.Pal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A.K.Choudhary, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

¶15

CORAM:

¶16

HON’BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶17

FINAL ORDER NO.75338/2024

¶18

DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2024 DATE OF DECISION : 23.02.2024

¶19

Per Ashok Jindal :

¶20

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein redemption fine and penalty were enhanced.

¶21

The facts of the case are that the appellant imported a consignment of commercial refrigerators and parts thereof. At the time of import, the appellant was not known that whether they are required to produce the pollution control certificate or not ? Thereafter, they came to know that in respect of these import, pollution control certificate is required. Therefore, at the time of clearance of these goods, the adjudicating authority took a lenient view against the appellant and after confiscating the impugned goods on payment of

¶22

¶23

Customs Appeal No.75853/19

¶24

duty, held that the goods are liable for confiscation and imposed redemption fine of Rs.4,000/- and penalty of Rs.4,000/- and the goods were cleared to the appellants for home consumption.

¶25

2.1 Later on, an appeal filed by the Revenue before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant are on the lower-side. Therefore, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) considering the facts and circumstances of the case, enhanced the redemption fine to Rs.80,000/- and penalty to Rs.40,000/-.

¶26

2.2 Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.

¶27

The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case at the time of adjudication, the redemption fine and penalty were imposed on the appellant of Rs.4,000/- each and the goods were allowed for clearance for home consumption. He submits that as the goods are not available at the time of appellate stage, the redemption fine and penalty cannot be enhanced. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, supported the impugned order and submits that the goods were involved of the high value, therefore, the redemption fine and penalty were not justified by the adjudicating authority and the ld.Commissoner (Appeals) has rightly done so.

¶28

Heard both sides and considered the submissions.

¶29

In this case, the facts are not in dispute and the impugned goods cleared on payment of redemption fine and penalty of Rs.4,000/respectively. Later on, the Revenue has enhanced the redemption fine

¶30

¶31

Customs Appeal No.75853/19

¶32

and penalty on the appellant by way of impugned order, but the goods were not available with the Revenue.

¶33

In that circumstances, I hold that the redemption fine and penalty, cannot be enhanced after giving clearance of the goods for home consumption. In that circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and affirm the order of the adjudicating authority.

¶34

In these terms, the appeal is disposed off.

¶35

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)

¶36

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

¶37

Jonree Equipments v. Kolkata(port)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jonree Equipments v. Kolkata(port)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswajit Das vs Shillong

Narendra Kumar Jain vs Shillong

Aks Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs Kolkata(port)

Aks Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs Kolkata(port)

Philips India Limited vs Cc Air Cargo Ch -Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo(Chennai VII )

Container Corporation of India Ltd. vs Commissioner, Customs (Import)-New Delhi(Icd Tkd)

Rohit Sharma vs Commissioner, Customs (Import)-New Delhi(Icd Tkd)

Lovy International vs Commissioner, Customs (Export)-New Delhi(Icd Tkd)