9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to Serial No. 257 of Notification No. 21/2002. Since from the description of the goods given in Bill of Entry, the classification and claim for exemption was not clear, the appellants were asked to submit the documents for proper classification and for examining the exemption applicable for the goods. The commercial invoice was filed by the appellants on enquiry from the customs. The catalogue of the goods revealed that the goods were tools and were not moulds for leather footwear. Therefore, the first check examination was ordered for classification. Instead of getting the goods examined, the appellants vide their letter dated 15-9-2003, filed a request for amendment of Bill of Entry and submitted EPCG Licence No. 063000068, dated 18-7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have been accepted but the adjudicating authority instead of accepting the amendment of bill of entry, confiscated the goods and imposed penalty. Reliance was placed on the following decisions that penalty cannot be imposed :- (i) Jay Kay Exports Industries v. CC, Kolkata [2004 (163) E.L.T. 359] for the proposition that finalisation of Tariff heading under which goods would fall is the ultimate job of Customs Authorities and if the appellants had claimed wrong classification according to limited understanding of customs law, mens rea cannot be attributed on his part. On this ground, confiscation under Section 111(m) and imposition of penalty was set aside. (ii) Haria Exports Ltd v. CC, Mumbai [1999 (113) E.L.T. 272] for the propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectly held the goods liable for confiscation and imposed penalty which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order. It was, therefore, pleaded that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. On considering the arguments raised by both the sides, I find that although amendment to the bill of entry can be filed under Section 149 of the Customs Act before the assessment, however, in this case, the appellants were very much aware that what is mould doctor and accessories for footwear industry and what is mould for leather industry. Despite this difference being known to them and they having obtained EPCG licence for mould for leather industry, they have claimed wrong exemption and when it was detected by the customs, they tried to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
