9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sserts any such contravention and fails to comply with any provisions of the Act. In the present case there is no finding by Commissioner (A) that the appellant abetted with exporter so as to intentionally declare the excess number of ladies suits or as to allow the exporter to claim excess drawback. This seems to be a clear case of human error, wherein 977 suits were mentioned in the EDI as 1977 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der shipping bill dated 17.11.2011 for and on behalf of shiva International New Delhi. During scrutiny it was found that the number of ladies stitch suits was mentioned as 977 sets whereas as per the EDI system the goods declared were 1997. Further, on examination the stitched suits were found to be 877 instead of 977 declared in the checklist. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the exporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crepancy on the part of the exporter cannot make him liable to penalty. 5. The said pleas of the appellant were accepted by the Commissioner (A) who passed the following order: I have carefully gone through the said order, contents of appeal and oral submissions. I have examined the issue I find that the G-Card holder filed the documents, in this case and he is a largely responsible. CHA i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... system is a human error which should not call for any penalty. Further, when appellate authority himself has held that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee, imposition of penalty even under section 117 of the Customs Act is not justified even though the said section does not provide for any mens rea. 8. We have seen the provisions of section 117 which provides for imposition of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
