9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny misdeclaration on the part of the importer. Therefore, in the instant case, the provisions of Section 111(m) are not attracted at all, confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not justified and consequential imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the said Customs Act, is also not correct, set aside the confiscation and consequent imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act is also not sustainable and is set aside, appeal is allowed - C/173/2010 - A/216/2011-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 14-6-2011 - Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri C. Laxmikumaran, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.P. Pareira, JDR, for the Respondent. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has paid the differential duty and is only challenging the confiscation of the goods and imposition of fine thereon and also imposition of penalty. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits they are not challenging the assessment but only are only appealing against the confiscation and consequent fine and penalty. The ld. Counsel argues that confiscation of the goods under import has been done under the provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the said provision applies only in the following situation - (m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 111(m) of the Customs Act provides for confiscation of the goods only if the goods declared in the bill of entry do not correspond in respect of the value or in any other material particular with the entry (bill of entry) made under the Act. In this case, the appellants had declared the goods correctly as laser printers and parts and also classified them under Heading 8471.60 in respect of printers and Heading 8473.30 in respect of parts of printers of the Customs Tariff which has also been accepted by the Customs. Further, the Customs have also accepted the transaction value declared by the appellants in the bill of entry for determination of the basic Customs duty. Only in respect of computation of CVD, there is a dispute between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
