9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in confirming the duty demand on 10% of the consignment at the rate applicable to the “sawn woods” by classifying them under CTH 4407.29. It is not in dispute that the consignment consisted of roughly squared sawn woods logs as declared by the appellant to the extent of 90% of the consignment and only 10% of the goods were found to be sawn wood - there was no deliberate mis-declaration on the part of the appellant with intent to evade Customs duty. Therefore, confiscation was not warranted and consequently imposition of fine and penalty was also not warranted. Accordingly, we set aside the fine and penalty imposed on the appellant while upholding the confirmation of duty demand - Decided pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also personal hearing vide letter dated 16/08/2000 and therefore the case was adjudicated based on the examination report. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority vide order dated 25/08/2000 held that 10% of the total goods are sawn classifiable under sub-heading No.4407.29 and chargeable with B asic Customs duty of 25% advalorem with a surcharge of 10% on BCD. He ordered confiscation of sawn woods valued at Rs. 1,01,862/- under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 35,000/- under Section125 ibid. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant and the appellant was directed to discharge the duty on a value of Rs. 1,01,862/- at the rate applicable to sawn woods. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onducted in their presence under the supervision of Assistant Commissioner (Docks). If that be so, the appellant cannot at the appellate stage dispute the examination report. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in confirming the duty demand on 10% of the consignment at the rate applicable to the sawn woods by classifying them under CTH 4407.29. 6.2 As regards the question of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty, we are of the view that the same was not warranted in the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that the consignment consisted of roughly squared sawn woods logs as declared by the appellant to the extent of 90% of the consignment and only 10% of the goods were found to be sawn wood ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
