9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 27-10-2005 wherein the confiscation of the goods and imposition of the penalty is upheld. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported stainless steel scrap from Pakistan by Rail Wagon No. PRC-77890 (Pakistan Bogie) at Customs Rail Cargo, Amritsar and filed Bill of Entry No. 2653 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities to clear the said goods based on a public notice is not correct as the public notice cannot go beyond the notification. Alternatively it was submitted that the appellant had sought to clear the said consignment through one of the designated ports and also applied to the rail authorities for permission to transport the said consignment, it was denied and hence there is no fault of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent had arrived in rail wagon from Pakistan. The import of the metal scrap was subject to the conditions as laid in the Procedures of Handbook of EXIM policy. As per the policy, to avoid the re-occurrence of the untoward incident due to the presence of war related materials; Para 2.32 was amended on 15-10-2004. By the said amendment the importer was required to furnish a certificate from the suppl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sought to clear the consignment thru Land Customs Station, Amritsar. It is a well settled that Ignorance of law is not a bliss . Appellant cannot now take recourse to justify his stand by relying upon the Notification No. 63/94. Though the said notification permitted the appellant to import all goods from the Land Customs Station, Amritsar, it would not cover the goods whose imports are spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is only an error on the part of the appellant not import the same except thru a designated port, but that itself would not warrant a stiff penalty on the appellant. The penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the appeal is allowed partly as indicated in the above paragraphs. (Pronounced on 26-4-2006) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
