9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (T)]. - Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned Orders-in-Appeal No. 92-93/2004, dated 17-5-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Customs House, Cochin. 2. None appeared for the respondent. Mr. K. Sambi Reddy, the learned Departmental Representative appeared for the Revenue. 3. We have heard the learned JDR and also gone through the records of the case. 4.& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... citing certain decisions of the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order accepted their contention and held that once the importers have relinquished the title, penalty is not imposable. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order on the following grounds. (a) In a similar case, the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Gokul Refoils & Solvents Ltd. v. Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iolation of statute and misdeclaration. (c) Further in the subject case, the relinquishment letter dated 19-11-2003 was given by the Customs House Agent and not the importer. The Customs House Agent cannot relinquish the title of the goods which he does not have, the relinquishment could have been considered only if done by the importers, hence the plea that importers have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar goods. The importers have been penalized in other cases for the similar offences. Therefore it would be fair to assume that the importers were aware of the misdeclaration and relinquishment of title plea only an afterthought to escape the penal liability. (f) The stand that if a person who has imported goods in violation of import policy and by misdeclaring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
