9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. Appeal No. E/53392/2014-CU(SM) is filed by the importer and the other two appeals are filed by the authorized respresentatives of the CHA, M/s Schanker India (P) Ltd. Therefore they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. Brief facts are as under: 2. M/s Bosch Chassis Esystems India Ltd., the appellant in C/53392/2014-CU(SM) imported Hydraulic Oil Brake Hose. They filed Bill of Entry (B/E) dated 17.11.2011 and commercial invoice dated 27.9.2011 through their CHA, M/s Schanker (I) Pvt. Ltd. declaring import of 40,000 meters of Hydraulic Oil Brake Hose. On examination of the consignments by officers of SIIB, it was found that the quantity of the goods imported was 90000 mts., and not 40,000 mts. as declared in B/E. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 114 (AA). A separate penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed on Shri Vijay Kumar Mullankara, authorized representative of M/s Bosch Chassis India Ltd.. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Gagandeep Singh authorized representative of CHA, M/s Schanker (I) Ltd. under Section 112 (a) and also further penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 114 (AA). Similarly penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed on Sh. Satendar Singh, authorized representative of CHA, M/s Schankar (I) Ltd under Section 112 (a) and a further penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 114 (AA) for assisting and handling clearance in respect of the B/E. The appellants filed appeal before the First appellate authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate authority. However, the penalties imposed upon M/s Bosch Chassis Ltd. both under 114 A and 114AA of the Customs Act were upheld by the impugned order. The learned Counsel argued that penalty under Section 114A cannot be imposed as there was no malafide intention or willful mis-representation and that quantity was declared incorrectly only due to mistake. Further, that penalty imposed on M/s Bosch Chassis Ltd. under Section 114AA is wholly unwarranted. That penalty under this provision can be levied only in those situations where export benefits are claimed without exporting the goods and by presenting forged documents. The learned Counsel adverted to the discussion of the Twenty Seventh Report of Standing Committee of Finance to eluci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hose for which two separate commercial invoices were generated by the supplier. It was for the first time that for one purchase order, two different invoices were generated by the foreign supplier. The supplier by mistake, instead of scanning the two separate invoices, scanned the same invoice twice. The second invoice of 50,000 mts was thus missed out. As only one invoice was usually generated by the supplier against the purchase order, the appellants send the same to the CHA for filing B/E. When the difference in quantity came to their knowledge, they sought clarification from the supplier who then scanned the second invoice acknowledging the mistake. It is submitted that the difference in quantity occurred only due to an inadvertent mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... probable one. From the facts and circumstances, it can be inferred that mis-declaration in the B/E was due to an inadvertent mistake which occurred because the shipper provided only one invoice instead of the two invoices raised for the order placed. 7. The impugned orders have proceeded on a footing that M/s Bosch Chassis Ltd. willfully mis-declared the quantity and the CHA connived in this act. In Escorts Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi (supra), the facts are that, the description of goods was wrongly given by foreign supplier in the import invoice and the same was copied by CHA who filed the B/E without referring to the purchase order. The Tribunal held that it was not a case of wilful mis-statement as the goods were correctly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustainable. However, I uphold the order of confiscation of the goods as the quantity declared was different in the B/E and reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- . 8. From the foregoing the impugned order in appeal No. C/53392/2014 filed by M/s Bosch Chassis Esystems Ltd. is modified to the extent of reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs and also setting aside the penalty imposed under section 114 A and section 114AA of the customs Act, 1962. The appeal No. C/51877/2014 and C/51878/2014 filed by Sh. Satender Singh and Sh. Gagandeep Singh is allowed setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A. 9. The appeals No. C/51877/2014 and C/51878/2014 are allowed. The appeal No.C/53392/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
