9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on relating to import at specified ports - they were not the original importers and we take note of the fact that they have only come forward to clear the goods already imported - charge of violation of Section 111 (d) cannot be made against the appellants Confiscation - import not at designated ports - appellants had initially declared the lower value and have subsequently agree to pay duty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same after the exporter was allowed by customs to sale it to the appellants. He further states that the impugned goods were tin plates second which was correctly declared in the Bill of Entry filed by the appellants and in this regard no mis-declaration has been found by the Custom authorities. The fact that the impugned goods were described as prime in the IGM cannot be held against the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order in view of the above. 3.After hearing both sides, we find that the present appellants have not mis-declared the impugned goods in the Bill of Entry filed by them. Hence the charge of mis-declaration of the goods as regards its quality cannot be held against them. In regard to the specification relating to designated ports, we find that only tin plates waste/waste/tin plate mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently agree to pay duty on the higher value determined by the Custom authorities. Hence the charge made against them under Section 111(m) for confiscation of the impugned goods and for imposition of penalty under Section 112 is sustainable. At the same time, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that they were not the original importers we reduce the redempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
