9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r earlier Final Order No. 19/2004, directed us to dispose of the appeal before us afresh on merits. 2. The appeal is against the Commissioner's order (a) confiscating 198.673 MTs Tin Plate Waste of width 600 mm under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act with option for redemption against payment of a fine of Rs. 25.00 lakhs (b) imposing penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs under Section 112 of the Act and.(c) demanding differential duty of Rs. 14,12,161/- under Section 28 of the Act. Learned Commissioner found the above quantity of goods to have been misdeclared in respect of both description and value. He held that such misdeclaration had been made with intent to evade payment of customs duty on the goods. On account of such misdeclaration, confiscatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. Indeed this liability was implicitly upheld by the Hon'ble High Court inasmuch as, unless the goods are liable for confiscation, its importer will not be liable for penalty. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act depends on whether the importer, by his commission or omission, has rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. By directing this Tribunal to proceed to determine the penal liability of the appellants, the Hon'ble High Court was proceeding on the premise where- the goods were liable for confiscation. The question now before us is whether a redemption fine is liable to be imposed on the appellants under Section 125 of the Act. Learned counsel submits that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs on the party under Section 112. In this connection, it is the appellant's case that they had not made any deliberate misdeclaration of the goods and that their suppliers had by mistake shipped to them goods which they had not ordered for. We find that, out of the above quantity of goods, 178.15 MTs were imported from South Africa and the remaining 20.523 MTs from USA. Learned counsel submits that the South African supplier, in a letter, confirmed their mistake. However, no similar letter of the American supplier is available. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the appellant's claim that he had not wilfully misdeclared the entire quantity of 198.673 MTs. However, we are not taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
