No confiscation & redemption fine when issues relates to interpretation

Hindustan Distributors Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chandigarh)

CESTAT find that in the present case, there was no malafide intention to evade duty on the part of the appellant and hence, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable in view of the various decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant cited supra; particularly the decision of this Tribunal in the case of John Deere India Pvt Ltd (supra), wherein it has been held that when the issue relates to interpretation then the goods are not liable to confiscation and no redemption fine is imposable on the said goods and consequently no penalty is imposable on the appellant.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER

These six appeals are directed against two different impugned orders bearing no. LUD-EXCUS-001-APP-1767-1769-18 dated 08.10.2018 and LUD-EXCUS-001-APP-569-571-2023 dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Ludhiana, whereby in the first three appeals, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 08.10.2018, has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 13.05.2016 by confirming the imposition of redemption fine of Rs.6,00,000/- and penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of each Bill of Entry; but in other three appeals, vide subsequent impugned order dated 27.07.2023, the same Commissioner (Appeals) has partially set aside the Order-in-Order dated 07.04.2016 by setting aside the redemption fine but still retained the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of each Bill of Entry. The details of all the six appeals are given herein below in tabular form:

Since the facts in all these appeals are identical, therefore, all the six appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision.