9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hemicals Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore and filed Warehousing Bill of Entry on 10.10.2006. They have cleared 620 MT of said imported goods at concessional rate during the period 23.11.2006 to 19.12.2006 against 11 ex-bond Bills of Entry availing benefit of Notification No.73/2005-Cus, dt.22.07.2005. On the basis of investigations by DRI officers initiated on 28.12.2006, against import of such items by other importers, it revealed that the country of origin declared by such importers including the present appellant was incorrect. Accordingly, on the basis of further investigation carried out by the DRI collecting evidences from the overseas agencies and other sources, Show Cause Notices were issued to all the importers including the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided in favour of the Appellant therein, hence, no penalty is imposable on them. It is his contention that in any case the Appellant are entitled to exercise the option to pay 25% of the penalty imposed under Sec.114A of CA,1962. 4. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that even though the import had taken place on 10.10.2006, and the imported goods were ware housed and cleared during the month of November & December 2006 by claiming the benefit of notification, the Appellant failed to inform the Department about the mis-declaration of the Country of Origin which was communicated only on 29.12.2006 , i.e. after initiation of investigation against other appellants, who procured the same material from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gapore and availing the benefit of Notification No.73/2005-Cus. In support of their bonafideness, the Appellant argued that on 29.12.2006, they themselves voluntarily approached the Commissioner of Customs Kandla indicating their intention to discharge differential duty, hence, no malafide should be attached to their action in penalizing them under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue countering the said argument submitted that soon after the initiation of investigation against other importer who imported the goods from the same source on 28.12.2006, the Appellant chose to come to Commissioner of Customs, Kandla indicating their intention to pay the differential duty, whereas for two months i.e. Nov. & Dec.2006 continuously they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
