9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t furnish the aforesaid information, required to decide whether the said consignment should be prevented from import or not. It is a factual admission of the customs that the inspection report furnished by M/s. ValueguruEngineers, does not contain any information that would render the consignment as not importable. Non-compliance with the fulfilment of the conditions may entail 100% goods carried by the consignment being subjected to inspection and that would not tantamount to improper import of goods u/s 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. - Revenue has failed to bring home the charge of abatement against the appellant. - No penalty - Decided in favor of appellant. - C/41091 - 41092/2015 - FINAL ORDER No.41062-41063/2016 - Dated:- 4-7-2016 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.90 + ₹ 19,18,902/- under Section 111 (d) of the Act and however with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of ₹ 2,50,000/- (OIO No. 25804) and ₹ 2,00,000/- (OIO 25805) under Section 125 of the Act along with all applicable duties. He has also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- under Section 112 (a) of the Act on the appellant under both the OIO.On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellants were not complying with the conditions of Import in terms of Para 2.32 of the Hand Book of Procedures and failed to furnish the clarifications/details called by the LAA. Aggrieved by this, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel Dr.Sunita Sunder R. Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he following case laws in support of her contentions: 1. A.R. Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, CESTAT Delhi-2006 (200) ELT 411 (Tri.-Del.) 2. Dee-Vee Metals Vs. CC-2007 (216) ELT 223 (Tri.-Mum.) 3. Rashmi Jain Vs. Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade-2015 (316) ELT 389 (Del.) 4. NGA Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai-F.O.1487/2009 dated 16/10/2009 She further submitted that on the aforesaid grounds the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal allowed. 3. The Ld. AR, Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC, reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the agency which has been authorised to inspect the consignment in USA cannot inspect at other places and the PSI certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not contain any types of arms, ammunition, mines, shells cartridges or any other explosive materials in any form used or otherwise and that the consignment was checked for radiation level and it does not contain radiation level (gamma and neutron) in excess of natural background. It is not the case of the Customs that the PSI Certificate filed by the importer does not furnish the aforesaid information, required to decide whether the said consignment should be prevented from import or not. It is a factual admission of the customs that the inspection report furnished by M/s. ValueguruEngineers, does not contain any information that would render the consignment as not importable. In this case, the consignment was examined and no prohibite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
