The Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that importing food products intentionally through Changrabandha LCS, knowing very well that it was not an authorised port to import such goods, amounts to a clear violation of the provisions of the Notification issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries in the Ministry of Agriculture under S.O. 2666(E) dated October 16, 2014.
The Tribunal explained that food products need to comply with certain standards at the time of imports, and thus need to be checked by the authorities having expertise to examine the said goods. Such expert authorities are not available at all the Ports and hence, importation of these items has been restricted only through the designated ports where such experts are available for examination of the said goods.
Since the appellant continued to import many consignments through the same port again and again in violation of the said S.O. 2666(E), the Tribunal concluded that the lower authority has rightly confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, as improper importation by the appellant through the Port which is not a “notified port” as per the stipulated Notification.
The Division Bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that since the Changrabandha LCS is not one of the authorised ports to import the livestock products as per the Notification issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries in the Ministry of Agriculture under S.O. 2666(E), the importer-appellant failed to comply with the provisions of the Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries, in importing products from the said unauthorised LCS.
The Bench noted that the appellant has imported yoghurt-flavoured drinks under CTH 04039090, which refers to the item as a milk product as per the Customs Tariff, and as per the procedure for import of livestock products into India, all livestock products given in the SCHEDULE appended to the Notification No. S.O. 2666 have to be imported only through the specified ports.
Briefly, the appellants had imported 4600 Cartons of yoghurt-flavoured milk drinks through Changrabandha Port (LCS), which is not an authorised port for the importation of livestock products, as per the Amended Notification issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries in the Ministry of Agriculture under S.O.2666(E) dated October 16, 2014. The AO opined that the appellant had violated the provisions of the Livestock Importation (Amendment) Act, 2001, read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, making the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), as the said goods were imported through a port which has not been authorised to import such goods.
However, the AO opined that the violation of port restriction was only a Venial Breach for which the Redemption Fine @10% and penalty @ 5% of the assessable value of the goods should be sufficient. Accordingly, the goods were allowed to be cleared on payment of a Redemption Fine @ 10% and a penalty @ 5% of the assessable value of the goods. Similarly, the same goods imported by the appellant through different bills of entry through the same LCS have been adjudicated and allowed clearance on payment of Redemption Fine and penalties.
Aggrieved against the orders of imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty in respect of all the Bills of Entry, the appellant approached the Commissioner, who set aside the penalties and upheld the Redemption Fines.
Appearances:
Advocates Nilotpal Chowdhury and Sweety Jha, for the Appellant/ Taxpayer
Advocate S. Chakravorty, for the Respondent/ Revenue
