9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court; certified copy of which was received by the Registry on 13.02.2014. The Revenue's Appeal was listed on 17th Feb. 2014, adjourned to 19th Feb.2014 at the request of the advocate for the assesse-importer M/s A.K Enterprises. On 19th Feb.2014, due to hearing of the group matters of around 54 Appeals filed by M/s Hyva Motors Ltd. & Ors., the matter was adjourned to 06th March 2014 due to paucity of time. On 06.03.2014, as the assessee's Appeal could not be traced by the Registry and the Advocate on record Shri B.N Pal requested for adjournment due the engagement of his senior in the High Court; both sides requested for a long adjournment so as to enable the Registry to locate the Appeal file of the assessee or in the alternative to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, ordered confiscation of 5232.80 kgs. of lace without visible background valued at Rs.12,34,022.19 (CIF) under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs.3,09,000/-; also imposed penalty of Rs.11.00 Lakhs on the importer-assessee M/s.A.K.Enterprises under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the importer-assessee M/s. A.K. Enterprises preferred an Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) Customs. After considering the submissions and the grounds raised in the Appeal, the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) though upheld the confiscation of the impugned goods and imposition of penalty on the importer, but reduced the redemption fine to Rs.1.00 Lakh and pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further independent corroborative evidence. However, he further submits that even though in the letter dt.12.03.2010 of the overseas supplier it has been accepted that there was a wrong dispatch of the consignment, but, such letter cannot be read in the sense that the wrong dispatch was without knowledge of the importer-assessee. It is his submission that on the contrary such letter is an after-thought and procured by the importer soon after detection of the said quantity of mis-declared goods by the Customs department. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has erred by not taking into cognizance of the fact that the importer themselves have admitted that there was wrong dispatch of the consignment and there was mis-declaration and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice in the usual course of business as they have been importing such goods for many years in the past and no such discrepancy had ever been noticed. It is his submission that the overseas supplier had sufficiently explained the reason of dispatch of the wrong consignment in the said letter. He submits that even though the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has observed that that there is no malafide intention , but has wrongly upheld the confiscation and the penalty on technical violation. He submits that the goods are liable for confiscation and consequently no penalty is imposable on them. 7. Heard both sides and perused the record. We find that neither side has disputed about the merit of the case, that is, the correctness of the classification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the back drop of the Revenue's claim, we do not find merit in the contention of the Revenue that the reduction of fine and penalty is incorrect, in absence of cogent evidences rebutting the contention of the letter dated 15.03.2010 issued by the over-seas supplier stating clearly that the goods were wrongly consigned to the importer in India. Simultaneously, it also cannot be denied by the importer-assessee that there occurred a mis-declaration and mis-classification of the good imported into India, which they have readily accepted on the basis of letter dt.12.03.2010, waived the issuance of Show Cause Notice and participated in the adjudication proceeding. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in more or less similar circumstances in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty for improper importation of goods on the appellants on adjudication made under Section 122 giving the appellants option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation, to which they readily agreed accepting the laboratory test reports which proved the misdeclaration of the imported goods and attracted these provisions for adjudication of confiscation and penalty. There is no infirmity in the Tribunal's order. 8. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is violation of Sec. 111(m) of the Customs Act,1962, hence the goods are liable for confiscation and consequently, imposition of penalty is also warranted under Sec.112 of Customs Act,1962. Accordingly, following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
