L.T. OVERSEAS LTD. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by Commissioner of Customs whereby imported goods of assessable value of Rs. 30,37,799/ - are confiscated and allowed to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. Three lakhs and penalty of Rs. 75.000/ - was imposed.

(3.) THE contention of the appellant is that they are exporter of rice and they have exported big consignment of rice. Part of the consignment was received back as the same has not been accepted by the buyer and appellant filed Bill of Entry in respect of that consignment. On examination, it was found that it is not up in the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant also made a request for re -export, the same was allowed. The contention is that as the same goods i.e. rice which is exported was re -imported into India and due to passage of time, the rice was infected with insect etc. therefore, there is no mens rea on the part of the appellant to import into India the goods which are adulterated, therefore, are not liable for any penalty. The appellant also submitted that redemption fine is on the higher side. The contention of the appellant is also that while imposing penalty the Commissioner of Customs has not mentioned any provision of Customs Act. On the contrary, the Revenue submitted that as the appellant filed a Bill of Entry for import of basmati rice and the sample was sent for testing and Central Food Laboratory opined that the sample contained a large number of live and deal insects, insect fragments and insect larvae and the sample is adulterated. Therefore, the goods become prohibited and are liable for confiscation. The Revenue also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CC v. Bansal Industries reported in 2007 (207) ELT 346 and submitted that for imposition of penalty under the Customs Act, element of mens rea is not required. In rebuttal, the appellant relied upon the decision of Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of CC v. Kamal Kapoor reported in 2007 (5) STR 251 and the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Extrusion v. CC .