9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir wash. The declared value of the goods was US $ 5773.20 and freight was declared 507 GBP. During examination, it was found that the consignment in question consisted of two packages of total quantity of 12450 pcs instead of 10200 pcs. as declared in the Bill of Entry and total freight paid by the appellant was GBP 1365.05 instead of GBP 507 declared in the Bill of Entry. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under Section 111m of the Customs Act 1962 read with Section 118 of the Act and allowed to release the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. One lakh and penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantity of goods, value of goods and in respect of freight paid by them and the appellant admitted mistake when it was pointed out by the Revenue. The contention is that mens rea is not required for imposition of penalty under the Customs Act 1962. The Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CC Vs. Bansal Industries reported in 2007 (207) ELT 346. The contention is that in this case the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the goods which were supplied by the exporter by mistake. On appeal filed by the Revenue, Hon'ble Madras High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. In this case, there is no dispute that full quantity of goods were not declared in Bill of Entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, suppression of facts and the allegation that importer mis-declared the goods with intention to evade payment of duty. This finding was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court held as under :- "We have gone through the order of the Tribunal. It is true that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that it is inclined to accept the reasons given by the assessee that it was the supplier who by mistake loaded tin sheets waste which were not ordered by the assessee and that the Revenue has not shown that there was any flow back of funds for the purpose of tin sheets waste. However, a perusal of the order impugned shows that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had willfully suppressed the facts and had misdeclared the goods with intention to evade duty. The order of the Tribunal mainly proceeded on the footing of intention of the assessee to evade duty, which, in our view, is not correct in the matter of breach of a civil obligation attracting levy of penalty. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the question as reframed by us is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Connected CMP is closed." 7. I find that the ratio of the above deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
