9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held that element of mens rea is not required for imposition of punishment under Customs Act - Appeal is rejected - C/325/10-Mum - - - Dated:- 19-7-2011 - Mr. Sahab Singh, J. Appearance Shri Aqeel Sheerazi, advocate for Appellants Shri Navneet, SDR for Respondent Per : Sahab Singh This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed Bill of Entry No.893476 dated 9.4.09 for import of polyester yarn and declared it as high tenacity polyester yarn classifiable under heading 54022000. On examination of the sampled tested by the Textile Committee, it was found that the yarn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the part of the appellants to declare the goods as high tenacity yarn. He submitted that the rate of duty at that time was same as high tenacity yarn and medium tenacity yarn. For the simple disparity to the description, Sec.111(m) was invoked by the original authority and this was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Regarding Sec.111(d), which was also invoked by the original authority, the Commissioner(Appeals) has already given a finding that Sec.111(d) was not applicable as the importer has produced the advance licence at the time of clearance of the goods. Ld. Counsel has also cited the following decisions of the Tribunal in support of his contention that when there is no mala fide intention, there should not be any fine and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.Ex. Trichy (2009 (242) ELT 281 (Tri-Chennai) In this case also, confiscation, fine and penalty were set aside relying on the decision in the case of Shree Ganesh International vs. Commissioner (supra). The ld.counsel submitted that in view of these decisions, fine and penalty imposed on the appellants should be set aside. 4. Ld.D.R. representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and stated that once the declaration made in the Bill of Entry was found to be incorrect then the contravention of Customs provisions is established and goods are liable for confiscation under Sec.111(m) of the Customs Act. He also submitted that the appellants did not submit correspondence made with the foreign supplie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced the fine and penalty to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5000/- respectively. The ld.counsel submitted the above mentioned decisions passed by various Benches of the Tribunal in support of his case for setting aside the fine and penalty, whereas the decision cited by the Ld.DR passed by the Madras High Court which is exactly in similar facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court has held that element of mens rea is not required for imposition of punishment under Customs Act. It was held by the High Court that even if a mistake was done by them at the supplier's end, the importer can be held liable to penalty in such circumstances of the case. While applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, I do not find any infi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
