9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal against the impugned order wherein the goods have been confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty of ₹ 2.5 lakhs has been imposed on them. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant placed an order to their supplier for supplying SS defective pipe, Grade 316 welded. The goods were supplied to the appellant and as per the import documents g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bona fide importer of the impugned goods. He submitted that as they have no intention to misdeclare the goods, therefore they cannot be penalised for their bona fide act. For this he placed reliance on the Shree Ganesh International v. CCE - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 171, Oriental Containers Ltd. - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 503, Kirti Sales Corpn. - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 151, N.D. Metal Industries Ltd. - 2007 (220) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AR submitted that mens rea is not required to impose penalty. The ld. AR relied on the several case laws. The decision in Gujarat Travancore Agency - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 350 (S.C.) and UOI v. S. Ramakrishnan - 2010 (250) E.L.T. 499 (Mad.) are not applicable to this case as same has teen passed under the Income Tax provisions/FERA provisions respectively. In the case of Jain Exports - 1993 (66) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the DRI found that the appellant has misdeclared the goods. Therefore all the case laws relied by the ld. AR are not relevant to the facts of this case as bona fide of all the appellant were in doubt. But in this case, when the appellant has specifically placed an order on their foreign supplier for specific goods and the description of the same has been shown in the invoice as well as import d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
