The Kerala High Court held that the CESTAT erred in releasing Canadian Green Peas on payment of redemption fine.
The importer before actual grant of license imported goods and filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods declared as Canadian Green Peas henceforth referred to as the “subject goods”.
As per the declaration in the Bill of Entry the quantity declared is 210 metric tonnes with a declared assessable value of Rs.79,28,444. The Bill of Lading. The subject goods are Green Peas and presently treated as ‘restricted’ by the Revenue and Union of India.
The Commissioner of Customs, Kochi through Order made on the request of the importer for release of goods noted that DGFT Notification No.37/2015-2020 dated December 18, 2019, revised the import policy for the import of Peas (Pisum sativum) including Yellow Peas, Green Peas, Dun peas, and Kaspa peas.
The importer imported the subject goods after the issue of notification dated December 18, 2019 and March 28, 2020.
The issue raised in this case was whether the order of Tribunal under appeal directing release of subject goods on payment of redemption fine conforms to the scheme of Sections 2(33), 111(d) and 135 of Customs Act, 1962, section 3 of FTDR Act, 1992 read with notification dated December 18, 2019 and March 28, 2020 issued by Union of India.
According to the Customs Commissioner is not needed or alternatively detrimental to the interest of farmers.
The Tribunal held that the release of goods is the only option to the Customs Commissioner in the case on hand the language of Section 125 of Customs Act is fully liberalized.
The Coram consisting of Justice S.V. Bhatti and Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that the Appellate Tribunal in the case on hand is illegal, ignored relevant notifications, the mandate of FTDR Act and Customs Act 1962.
“The adjudication of a dispute in these matters is neither on the pedestal of the travesty of justice or we have so much discretion for doing proverbial justice to an importer. In matters of this nature, such an approach would go contrary to the object sought to be implemented by the authorities, in whom power is conferred particularly in matters of import, export, price etc,” the court noted.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at firstname.lastname@example.org