9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 414 - AT - CustomsMandatory penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 not imposed - imported goods as Polyester Bed Sheet - mis-classified the impugned goods - confiscation - redemption fine - duty - Penalty imposed u/s 112(a) - HELD THAT - Following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. M/s. Silpha Finvest P. Ltd. 2024 (3) TMI 246 - CESTAT KOLKATA . We are of the view that the respondent imported Bed sheets which are having merit classification under CTH 6304 of the Customs Tariff Act, in these circumstances, the charge of suppression of facts is not sustainable against the respondent. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Issues involved: Appeal against non-imposition of mandatory penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
The judgment pertains to an appeal where the Revenue challenged the impugned order for not imposing the mandatory penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 on the respondent. The respondent had filed Bills-of-Entry declaring goods as "Polyester Bed Sheet" under CTH 6304, while the Revenue contended that the goods were "Polyester Woven Fabrics" classifiable under CTH 5407. The respondent was ordered to pay a redemption fine, differential duty, and a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. However, the Revenue sought imposition of penalty u/s 114A due to deliberate mis-declaration by the respondent. The Tribunal found that the respondent had abandoned the goods and claimed to have correctly classified them as "Polyester Bed Sheet" under CTH 6304. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal noted that the goods, although made of synthetic filament yarn, were properly classifiable as Bed spreads/Bed sheets under CTH 6304. As the goods were correctly classified, no penalty was deemed imposable on the respondent. The Tribunal held that the charge of suppression of facts was not sustainable, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods as "Bed spreads" under CTH 6304, ruling out the imposition of any penalty on the respondent for mis-declaration. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, as the Tribunal found no merit in the arguments presented.
|
