9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot discharge the anti-dumping duty liability. The customs authorities also validated the transaction without noticing the mistake committed by the importer and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent alone was negligent and not the department. Further, no goods have been seized or confiscated. The law does not provide for imposition of fine on a consignment which has already been cleared and not available for confiscation and therefore, imposition of redemption fine by the original authority on the importer is clearly unsustainable in law and therefore, the appellate authority was right in dropping the demand of fine. As regards the imposition of penalty, the appellate authority has rightly observed that there was no malafide on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that there was no misdeclaration on the part of the appellant and only there was an error in not paying the anti-dumping duty which was made subsequently good by the appellant and the said error was also repeated by the department while validating the assessment. Therefore, he has set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed vide order dated 03/01/2013. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant Revenue is before us. 2. The condonation of delay seeks to condone a delay of seven days in filing of the appeal, which occurred due to postal delay. Though the reason stated is not quite unsatisfactory, since the Revenue does not gain by deliberately delaying filing of the appeal, a lenient view is taken and the delay is condoned. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, in terms of notification No. 34/2002-Cus dated 03//07/2012, anti-dumping duty was leviable on the said goods vide Serial No. 12 of the table annexed to the said notification. Thus, while doing the self assessment, the importer has committed an error and hence the imposition of fine and penalty is justified. 3.2 The learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds in the appeal memorandum. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the importer was not aware of the anti-dumping duty notification which came in the month of July 2012 and prior to this consignment, they had cleared another consignment vide bill of entry No. 852916 dated 19/01/2012 without payment of anti-dumping duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the respondent alone was negligent and not the department. Further, no goods have been seized or confiscated. The law does not provide for imposition of fine on a consignment which has already been cleared and not available for confiscation and therefore, imposition of redemption fine by the original authority on the importer is clearly unsustainable in law and therefore, the appellate authority was right in dropping the demand of fine. As regards the imposition of penalty, the appellate authority has rightly observed that there was no malafide on the part of the importer and it was only an inadvertent error. Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act applies only when there is a misdeclaration of any material particulars. In the present cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
