9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere confiscated. However, an option to redeem the same for home consumption on payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of confiscation was given to the exporter M/s. East West Linkers (P) Ltd., Delhi. Personal penalty of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed on the said exporter. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the appellants for their acts of omission and commission or abetment of doing or omission of such act which have rendered the goods liable to confiscation under section 113, ibid. 2. Shri J.P. Tanaon, learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended before me that the appellants prepared the Shipping Bills on the basis of the documents given to them by their exporters. It was subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered as appeal No. 445 of 85-NRB in the Tribunal. It was partly allowed in the following terms vide Order No. A/408/85-NRB :- I had carefully considered the contentions of both the parties. The main thrust of the Department s case is that the appellants had deliberately mis-declared the goods and that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) read with Section 118 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants endeavored to prove that the mistake had occurred due to bad communication. There are certain factors which lend support to the contentions. Firstly the appellants had quota both for gents shirts and ladies trousers. They had placed orders to the suppliers at Bombay for both the consignments. Secondly, there is no pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruled out, I am of opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently met if the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 2,500/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order relating to penalty is set aside. The redemption fine is, however, reduced to Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only). The appeal is dispossed of in these terms." 4. From the said observations made in the said order, it is clear that the mis-declaration occurred due to the genuine mistake on account of the faulty communication and there was no secret unholy deal with the result imposition of penalty on the exporter himself was held to be not justified. When such is a situation, explanation of the appellants that they had no knowledge about th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
