9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. JUDGMENT The assessee has preferred this appeal as against the Order, dated 4-12-2003 passed in Final Order No. 1055/2003 [2004 (164) E.L.T. 441 (Tri.-Chennai)] by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Southern Regional Bench, Chennai 600 006, raising the following question of law (a) Whether the confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 23-2-1999, the goods were examined on 9-3-1999. At that time, it was found that the drums were marked as RBD Palmolein Oil. The said consignment was referred to the Port Health Organistaion, who on 18-3-1999 certified that the consignment did not conform to the standards laid down for RBD Palmolein Oil under the PFA act. Immediately, there afterwards, the assessee approached the Customs Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable for confiscation. Apart from this, under the provisions of Section 111(d) and misdeclaration under Section 111(m) read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade and Development Act, 1992, the Authorities allowed the importers to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the purpose of exports and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was also imposed. Against this, the assessee went on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng paragraphs, the reply given by the suppliers on 11-3-1999, as regards the mistake committed by the filling point staff is only an afterthought as the same having been given long after the test conducted by the Port Authorities. If the supplier had found the same even before the point of dispatch, nothing prevented them from informing the Importer about the mistakes committed. 6. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
