2013 (8) TMI 781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he action of both the appellants viz., manufacturer and exporter was contrary to law – Held that:- No ill design was behind the consignments nor there was wilful suppression to cause prejudice to Revenue - assessee had voluntarily approached the customs authority to call back the consignment for bonafide mistake detected by it before discovery thereof by Customs - to prevent abuse of process of la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nical problem which otherwise results in mis-declaration of quantity. This is apparent from page 2 of the adjudication order. Request was made to the Customs Superintendent to call back the exported container for above reason. Accordingly containers were called back and opened. It was found that there was difference in contents in the containers and description in shipping bills. Revenue viewed th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... approached the customs authority to call back the consignment for bonafide mistake detected by it before discovery thereof by Customs. There appears no ill design behind the consignments nor there was wilful suppression to cause prejudice to Revenue. However to prevent abuse of process of law, we direct as under:- (1) Redemption fine is upheld. (2) Penalty on each of the appellants is re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X