Aquapharm Chemical Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that the recovery proceedings initiated by the Customs authorities under section 28AAA of the Customs Act are not sustainable as DGFT authorities have not cancelled MEIS licenses in question.
Facts- Pursuant to an investigation initiated by the DRI, Cochin Zonal Unit, a Show Cause Notice dated 02.11.2022 was, inter alia, served upon the appellant wherein the benefit of import duty exemption claimed by the appellant against 233 MEIS licenses was proposed to be denied on the ground that the appellant had misclassified its products exported under the brand name “Aquacid” during the period from 01.01.2017 to 30.09.2021.
Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 wherein the demands of duty, penalty and redemption fine have been confirmed against the appellant herein. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that the recovery proceedings initiated by the Customs authorities are not sustainable, since the DGFT authorities have not cancelled the licenses in question. Thus, demands of Custom duty of Rs.3,54,01,196/-confirmed u/s. 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rs.26,08,18,611/- confirmed u/s. 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962 are not sustainable and hence, the same are set aside. As there was no mis declaration of the goods, we hold that the said goods exported are not liable for confiscation u/s. 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the redemption fine of Rs.5,00,00,000/- imposed in lieu of such confiscation is set aside.
