9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakh would be appropriate - Having regard to the fact that total value of the goods is around Rs.9 lakhs, penalty of about Rs.50,000/- would meet the ends of the justice - Appeal is rejected but fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced to Rs.1 lakh and penalty on the appellant is reduced to Rs.50,000/- - C/504/09 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2011 - Hon ble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Appellant : Shri P.V. Sheth, Adv Respondent : Shri R. Nagar, SDR Per: Mr. B.S.V. Murthy: The appellants entered into contract for supply of 27 MT prime M.S. Plates of various thicknesses. Upon arrival of goods in Mundra, appellant filed bill of entry on 30.06.08 declaring them as of prime quality. On examination it was found that except for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . According to him the appellant himself got cheated. Further he also submitted that the Commissioner s observation that there was no evidence shown by the appellant that they had sought clarification from the supplier or taken action against the supplier or at least filed a protest was correct but appellant being a small trader was not in a position. 3. The learned DR on the other hand submits that the case of the department is that the goods were found to be seconds and defective and they could not have been imported through Mundra Port. The fact that appellants did not file any protest or at least write a letter shows that the appellant was cheated is not substantiated. He fairly agrees that as regards the price of seconds and defect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant was a small trader and was in no position to approach international court etc. and therefore decided to accept the loss. Further he submitted that while deciding the redemption fine, the original adjudicating authority did not do any market survey or did not take margin of profit into account. Redemption fine has been arbitrarily fixed and since appellant did not want to incur demurrage, appellant chose to pay the redemption fine and get the goods released so that demurrage is avoid. He submits that the redemption fine is excessive and no trader can make a profit of 30%. Further he also submitted that if the goods were of prime quality, there was no duty whereas for seconds and defective goods, duty also had to be paid. Similarly h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
