9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals is waived and recovery stayed. 3. With the consent of both the sides, we proceed to decide the appeals also. 4. These four appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common order-in-original dated 20-4-2001 vide which they had been saddled with the duty demand and the penalty of various amounts as detailed therein. 5. The appellants imported Acrylic Staple Fibre from Thailand, but they declared the country of origin as Taiwan in the bills of entry in order to avoid the payment of anti-dumping duty. The bills of entry along with related documents were submitted by them through CHA, M/s. American Express Shipping Lines, wherein this mis-declaration of the country of origin of the goods was made. Statement of Shri J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tten to that company for having not giving the correct information about the name of the country of origin of the goods. He, however, contested the correctness of the duty calculation and paid the entire duty amount. 7. None out of the other appellants contested the show cause notice. The Commissioner through the impugned order had ordered for the confiscation of the goods, but did not impose any redemption fine as the goods were not available for confiscation. He, however, confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,18,17,178/- under extended proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act and in terms of the same, appropriated Rs. 1,17,68,269/- already paid by the appellants. He also confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 5,75,690/- in terms of Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that the customs duty including the anti-dumping duty had not been correctly calculated with reference to the value and the rate of anti-dumping duty applicable at that time of the import of the goods. The appellants had rather paid excess duty and lodged claim for the refund of the excess amount. Therefore, the re-calculation of the duty amount deserves to be made by the adjudicating authority with reference to the value and the rate of the anti-dumping duty prevalent at the time of the import. Regarding imposition of the penalties, the learned Counsel has contended that there was no mala fide on the part of the appellants in mis-declaring the country of origin of the goods. Whatever country of origin was intimated to them in the do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d these facts and further disclosed that he had already taken up the matter with the supplier s company in that regard. The appellants had even deposited the entire duty amount. All these facts goes long way to dispell an interference that there was any mala fide intention on their part in making mis-description regarding the country of origin of the goods. Rather it shows that they acted in a bona fide manner on the information supplied to them by their supplier of the goods and when the mis-description was detected, they deposited the duty amount which according to them was due. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and the conduct of the appellants, we do not find it a fit case where imposition of penalties of the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
