9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods after assessment on payment of duty on 8-10-98. After clearance the goods were sold to one M/s. Tarun Enterprises on an estimated profit claimed to be about Rs. 50,000/-. 1.2 DRI Officers recorded certain statements dated 26-10-98 27-10-98 thereafter a notice dated 29-11-99 was issued, contending that the goods, as declared imported, were not capable of use as insole in leather industry since they were sold to a trader not an actual user in leather industry the benefit of notification availed was not eligible. The notice issued vide para 11 states - (a) The importer has willfully mis-declared the subject goods as sheets for making Insole and wrongly claimed the benefits of concessional rate of duty under Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goods were held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) 111(o) of the Customs Act 1962 ordered adjustment of Rs. 3 lakhs deposited during investigation towards duty demand imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,50,310/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act 1962, a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on the Director under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence these appeals. 2.1 After hearing both sides considering the material on record the submission made it is found - (a) the adjudicator has not arrived at any finding on the time bar issue raised. (b) At the time of import, i.e. on 5-10-98 when the BE was filed, the practice in the Custom House, as established, was to allow the clearance of Nylon Tricot Flocking under Notification 23/98 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) there is no misdeclaration of goods in description as sheet, value etc., confiscation under Section 111(m) 111(o) therefore cannot be upheld. (f) the duty demands made under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 are also found to be barred by limitation by these proceedings initiated in 1999. (g) when ingredients of proviso clause demands of duty are not being upheld, the penalty under Section 114A interest under Section 28AB cannot be upheld. The appropriation order is not called for. (h) when confiscation liability is not being upheld under Section 111(o) 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 penalty under Section 112 of the said Act cannot be upheld. 3. In view of the findings herein above, the order is not upheld, the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
