9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission has been done intentionally to avoid payment of Custom duty and to earn huge profits, feels that valuation as done by the lower authorities is just and proper, plea of the applicant on the quantum of fine and penalty has no merit as the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed by Adjudicating authority cannot be considered harsh as it is even less than 20% and 10% of the value respectively. Therefore, Government upholds the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal with slight modifications in order-in-appeal, revision application is rejected X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) of the Customs Act, 1962. On having been aggrieved by these adjudication orders, the applicant filed an appeal before the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) who after due consideration of the submissions of the applicant rejected the same. 3. Now the Applicant has submitted this Revision Application on the following main grounds : 3.1 The applicant being not conversant with Customs Act, carried the said goods as baggage with him instead of sending through cargo, on the belief that like Railways, goods can be carried and further duty were leviable in goods imported in person. 3.2 It is incorrect to allege and held that applicant passed through green channel & didn't declare contents of his belongings to Customs Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d site. The impugned goods of Chinese origin are freely available in the market. The Ld. Adjudicating & Appellate authority erred in taking value of similar goods and incorrectly resorted the valuation under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 3.6 The applicant is a young unemployed person & went to China in search of his future prospective. There were no mala fide to infringe provision of Customs Act. It may kindly be appreciated that items under seizure fall under OGL category & there are neither any prohibition nor restriction under Foreign Trade Policy on their importation. 3.7 The redemption fine and personal penalty have been exorbitantly & arbitrarily imposed as lapse was unintentional and occurred under bona fide im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for business cannot be made to dictate & sign on wrong details. There were also enough opportunities for the applicant to raise his denials as per law. In absence of any such documentary evidence mere verbal denials at later stages of the case - proceedings are nothing but afterthoughts. The proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 including statement under Section 108 of the Act ibid are legally admissible as per settled law. 8. Further import of such trade goods through baggage mode by the applicant in commercial quantity cannot be taken as bona fide baggage in terms of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962. It also violates the provisions of para 2.20 of EXIM POLICY 2004-2009 and also the provision of Foreign Trade (Development and Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been done intentionally to avoid payment of Custom duty and to earn huge profits, feels that valuation as done by the lower authorities is just and proper. The case laws cited are not applicable for the reason that above act cannot be considered as bona fide/unintententional error. Hence confiscation of impugned goods and imposition of personal penalty, as detailed in paras above, cannot be assailed. 11. In view of overall facts and circumstances of the case, Government finds that the plea of the applicant on the quantum of fine and penalty has no merit as the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed by Adjudicating authority cannot be considered harsh as it is even less than 20% and 10% of the value respectively. Therefore, Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
