9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: Anil Choudhary: This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. 134/Mumbai-III/2010 dated 10.1.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s DHL Express India Pvt. Ltd. (a Courier) filed Courier shipping bill declaring samples and personal gifts for export of 150 pcs. of T-Shirts on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to clear the goods by declaring incorrect value. The adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Original confiscated the goods under Section 113 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with the option for redemption of the goods on the payment of redemption fine. Penalty was imposed on Exporter and appellant-Couriers under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant have preferred app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt goods. The appellant has not abetted in the evasion of duty, if any, and the penalty has been imposed in a mechanical manner without considering the facts on record and/or conduction of the appellant. Further there was no case of mis-declaration on the part of the appellant and further there is no case of violation of obligations on the part of the appellant as a Courier under Regulation 13 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beneficial scheme and further no duty was leviable on the said goods and accordingly, there was no case of any mis-declaration and or failure as per Regulation 13(b) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 and as such, no penalty was leviable on them. I further find that the said contention of the appellant have neither been found to be wrong nor rejected in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
