9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1506 - AT - CustomsMisdeclaration of imported goods - The examination revealed that the imported consignment consisted Zinc Scrap and there was no Aluminium Scrap in the consignment imported - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - the appellant filed Bill of Entry on the basis of documents available with them such as contract, invoice, Bill of Lading and Pre-shipment inspection certificate and description of the goods in all the said document was Aluminium Scrap therefore, the appellant did not have any mala-fide intention to mis-declare the goods - penalty set aside. The goods have contravened the provisions of Clause (m) and Clause (l) of Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 - redemption fine reduced from ₹ 5 lacs to ₹ 50,000/- - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods for violation of Customs Act, 1962. 2. Imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty. 3. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal before Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD. Issue 1: Confiscation of goods for violation of Customs Act, 1962 The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for import of Aluminium Scrap, but the examination revealed Zinc Scrap instead. The Original Authority confiscated the goods for violating Section 111(f), 111(l), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation, stating that the goods contravened provisions of the Act. However, the appellant argued that the goods were mistakenly loaded by the supplier, providing evidence such as sales contract, invoice, Pre-shipment inspection certificate, and Bill of Lading, all describing the goods as Aluminium Scrap. The Tribunal found that the appellant had no mala-fide intention to mis-declare the goods and set aside the penalty, but reduced the redemption fine. Issue 2: Imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty The Original Authority imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 5 lacs and a personal penalty of &8377; 1,50,000 on the importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these penalties, citing violations of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that there was no mala-fide intention and presented evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal, after considering the documents provided by the appellant, found that there was no intent to mis-declare the goods. As a result, the penalty of &8377; 1,50,000 was set aside, and the redemption fine was reduced from &8377; 5 lacs to &8377; 50,000. Issue 3: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal before Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD The appellant, aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties and examined the evidence provided by the appellant, including sales contract, invoice, Pre-shipment inspection certificate, and Bill of Lading. After thorough consideration, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty and reducing the redemption fine based on the lack of mala-fide intention by the appellant. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
