9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being contrary to what was declared are liable for confiscation Regarding penalty - Their knowledge about the consignment containing the goods different from what was declared appears to be only after the goods were examined by the customs in their presence - There is no evidence that the respondents were knowingly concerned in the supply of consignments which were different from what was declared in the Bills of Entry - Confiscation upheld - redemption fine reduced - penalty waived. - C/430/10 - Final Order No. 392/2011 - Dated:- 2-3-2011 - Mr.M.VEERAIYAN, JJ. Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR For the Appellant Shri R.Alwar, Advocate For the Respondent This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also imposed a penalty of Rs.1 lakh under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal, by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority in so far as the same related to order for re-export but waived the redemption fine and penalty. 4. Ld. SDR submits that the reliance placed by Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Norasia Container Lines Ltd. Vs Union of India as reported in 2008 (222) ELT 323 (Mad.) is misplaced as the court has not dealt with the liability of confiscation of the goods in such situation. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd. Vs CC Tuticorin [2010 (262) ELT 456] which was passed in similar circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith cover, coloured surgical gloves etc. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Board authorities have held that the consignments imported contained infectious materials and therefore hazardous in nature. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the goods imported being contrary to what was declared are liable for confiscation as adjudged by the original authority. Surprisingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) no where mentions that the goods are not liable for confiscation. The Commissioner (Appeals) has waived redemption fine based on certain decisions, but did not discuss the liability of the goods for confiscation in the light of the finding of goods quite contrary to what was declared. Further, the decision relied upon by the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
