9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice No. 40 dated 15-10-2008. The goods were received in the SEZ on 12-11-2008. As per the SEZ, Rules, seals of the vehicle were verified and the Cargo was allowed to be unloaded in the unit. 2. Subsequently, when the goods were examined in the presence of proprietor of the goods, Sodium Saccharine was found to be 20-40 Mesh instead of declared as 8-12 Mesh. The labels on the fiber drums containing Sodium Saccharine also showed the mesh size 20-40. The unit was supposed to export of Sodium Saccharine of mesh size 20-40. The goods were seized on 4-12-2008 and after completion of proceedings, the impugned order has been passed whereby, the goods have been confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 10 Lakh. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department to know that they were importing Sodium Saccharine of mesh size 20-40 and exporting the same whereas the claim made with the Development Commissioner was that Sodium Saccharine of size 8-12 mesh would be converted to 20-40 or 40-80 mesh size in powder form and exported. (iv) The appellant had entered into correspondence with the supplier by sending email on 14-11-2008 itself and received reply on 15-12-2008 but did not intimate or inform the department. (v) It was also noted by the Commissioner that while giving bill of entry number under which the goods were warehoused, the appellant had declared a wrong bill of entry number. (vi) The invoice dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as basically the department's case that mesh size was very important and should have been declared. Failure to declare the mesh size amounted to mis-declaration and therefore the goods were liable to seizure. There is no indication or finding by the learned Commissioner that in the earlier bill of entry filed by the appellant, mesh size was not indicated. There is no indication as to whether department had intimated the appellant to indicate mesh size Bill of entry was assessed as submitted. To be fair, the appellant also have not given this information.. Further, the very fact that the drums had a label which showed mesh size as 20-40, goes in favour of the appellants. If mis-declaration was the intention, the appellants should have taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priate to see whether by not giving mesh size in the bill of entry, the appellant have committed any offence, The only ground is that the invoice had given mesh size but the invoice was issued by the local arm. When we look at the regular invoice issued by the foreign supplier it does not give the mesh size at all. There is no law or any practice which was pointed out to us to show that where invoice did not contain details, it should be compared with proforma invoice. In any case, we find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned consultant that bill of entry has been filed in advance on 20-10-2008 whereas the goods were seized on 4-12-2008. There is no indication when the investigation started and when the goods were ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it can be said that the appellant did not declare ass the details in full. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt as regards mis-declaration and it is to be held that there was no mis-declaration in the bill of entry. At this stage, we have to observe that we cannot find fault with Revenue for initiating the proceedings in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and conclusion has been reached on the basis of strict interpretation of law as regards declaration to be made on the bill of entry and on that basis appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Impugned order as regards confiscation of the goods seized, imposition of redemption fine and imposition of penalty accordingly is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
