9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r baggage cell as per procedure, that also after the clearance is done by the authorities, Therefore, appellant cannot be held of filing incorrect declaration - Following decision of Rajesh Krishna Kumar Vadke [2005 (8) TMI 598 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/10234/2013 - Final Order No. A/10538/2013-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 19-4-2013 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri C. Subba Reddy, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri P.N. Sarvaiya, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 85/2012/ CUS/Commr(A)/AHD, dated 19-10-2012. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a courier company duly permitted to operate as an authorized courier at Air Cargo Complex Ahmedabad had filed three Courier Bills of Entry Nos. 18, 19 20 in the Form CBE-IV, all dated 20-2-2009 at courier baggage cell of Air Cargo Complex Ahmedabad, declaring the goods as documents, shoes, hand gloves, steel glass, saree, brass, nipple medicines, cloth, shawl, dress, book, spices, etc. on behalf of 27 consignees, as his clients. For all the three Bills of Entry the appellant claimed exemption from payment of duty, under Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the definition of free gift in the Regulation 3(d) of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998. As the goods in question could not be classified as gift and were actually dutiable, the appellant was required to file Courier Bills of Entry CBE-V or CBE-X. However, they filed a Courier Bill of Entry CBE-IV. After due investigation, a show cause notice bearing F. No. VIII/48-05/SIIB/09, dated 18-8-2009 was issued and the same was adjudicated vide impugned Order-in-Original No. 14/Addl. Commr./ACC/O A/2010, dated 10-6-2010 wherein the adjudicating authority inter alia has : 1. Confiscated the seized goods (cigarettes) valued at Rs. 9,80,000/- under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. However an option was given to redeem the goods after payment of Rs. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Five Thousand only) which shall be exercised within a period of one month from the receipt of the impugned order. 2. Confirmed the customs duty Amigo Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with applicable interest under Section 28AB of the Act, ibid. 3. Imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 7,31,483/- plus interest under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of clearance of courier bags inasmuch as that only after final clearance, the courier company gets possession of the packages, in such a situation, there can be no allegation of misdeclaration or any mala fide intention on the part of the appellant as the bags which are intended for delivery to the courier agency is first screened and then brought to the courier baggage hall. It is his submission that if the authorities have done the screening before the bags reached the courier baggage cell, then they should have stopped the baggage at the screening point itself, if it contained again items which are not allowed to be imported. It is his submission that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Krishna Kumar Vadke - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 418 (Tri.-Mumbai) will be applicable in this case as it cannot be held that there was a misdeclaration on the part of the assessee-appellant. 5. Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) on the other hand would submit that Shri Alex David, the director of the appellant has specifically stated that he agrees with the contents of the panchanama and the details contained in the panchanama as to true and correct. It also is his submission that the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ways import cargo deposit advice that the consignment which was in the name of the appellant was indicated as a console commodity. It can be also seen that there was another consignment of M/s. ACX International which indicated 10 pieces as courier commodity. It can be seen from the above that the consignment which was in the name of the appellant was not in the courier bags. I find that the first appellate authority in the findings in paragraph No. 5 has specifically recorded on this point as under : I have also appreciated the fact, which is also not proved otherwise by any evidence by the respondent-department, that the goods were brought as console cargo, and there was no label on the courier bag. The Revenue has not filed any appeal against such a finding of the first appellate authority and of the adjudicating authority. I find strong force in the contentions raised by the ld. counsel that if the cargo which has landed as a console cargo, the same cannot be found in the courier baggage cell, as the procedures laid down by the department are that only courier bags which are manifested as courier cargo, only be delivered at courier baggage cell at ACC Ahmedabad. This proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
