9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bi Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Both these appeals arise from a common OIA No. 440/2003-Cus., dated 22-12-2003 by which the importer and the CHA have been imposed with a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each under Section 112 of the Customs Act, which is under challenge. The grounds for proceeding against both the parties is that the Bill of Entry No. 6607, dated 6-5-2003 was filed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l error on the part of the supplier as the supplier, in the invoice, had shown the number of the imported item as only one and they were guided by the same. However, this plea has been rejected by both the authorities on the ground that the Airway Bill clearly disclosed the number of items as three. Therefore, both the authorities have clearly concluded that it was not a clerical error but an inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no intention to evade duty. Therefore, the confiscation and releasing the goods on payment of fine and penalty is not justified. 4. The learned JDR pointed out that it was an intentional act by both the parties. They could have got the goods examined before filing the Bill of Entry in terms of Section 46(2) of the Act and the discrepancy in the Invoice and Airway Bill was glaring and conspic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al error and both the importer and the CHA had not noticed the discrepancy. In terms of Section 46(2) of the Customs Act, the appellants could have got the consignment examined before filing the Bill of Entry. The importer could have asked for clarification before filing the Bill of Entry. If this had been done, then they could have atleast taken a defence that they had held a bona fide belief and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef is required to be given. On a careful consideration, I agree with the learned SDR that the RF levied is quite reasonable and does not call for any interference. However, taking into consideration the factor that the assessee has been paying very high duty and the total duty would have been only Rs. 80,000/-, therefore, the quantum of penalty to be levied at 10% of the duty amount would be justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
