9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. - The Appellants are a research institute. They filed Bill of Entry No. 363670 dated 29-6-2006 through their Customs House Agent for clearance of one spectrophotometer. The Bill of Entry was assessed by the Computerized Risk Management System accepting the assessment as declared in the Bill of Entry filed and for clearance of goods without examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at Rs. 5,03,475/- and allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. One lakh. Further, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the importer under Section 112(b)(v) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the order, the Appellants filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) found it to be a case of genuine mistake and ordered that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 537 (S.C.) and Pine Chemical Suppliers - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 25 (S.C.) and argue that even when mens rea is not there the goods are liable to be confiscation and the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in his order and therefore the same may be set aside. 3. We have considered arguments on both the sides. 4.& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court cited above cannot be interpreted to mean that no room for correcting a bona fide error. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already held that the situation arose out of bona fide error. So considering the overall facts of the case, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order. There is an issue that a penalty is imposed under Section 112 when confiscation was not ordered under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
