9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplier, wherein the country of origin was mis-declared as Singapore. Broadly, we do not find any difference between the facts stated in the said case and the present one. In the circumstances, the penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 against the Appellant is unsustainable. Accordingly, we confirm the penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner on the Appellant under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. However, the Appellants are entitled to discharge 25% of the penalty, which option has not been allowed to them in the impugned order. Accordingly, Appellants are allowed to discharge 25% of the penalty, subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order is modified accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty under Section 114A/112 of Customs Act, 1962. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The learned Chartered Accountant Shri S.S. Gupta for the Appellant submits that in the present Appeal the Appellant dispute the imposition of penalty only and not the duty. He submits that the Appellant is a regular importer from the said overseas supplier and was not aware of the mis-declaration of country of Origin and not a party in any manner to the said offence committed by the overseas supplier in relation to import of the said goods. Hence, penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 is unwarranted. He further submits that the judgment of Jesons Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion was not to claim the benefit of said notification by mis-declaring the country of origin cannot be accepted. The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the Tribunal in Jesons Industries Ltd. s case, considering the facts and circumstance of the said case and after analysing the evidences on record, confirmed the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating authority on the Appellants therein situated on the same platform. Therefore, it cannot be acceptable to say that the present Appellants are placed in different circumstances, therefore, no penalty is imposable on them. However, he has fairly accepted that the benefit of option to discharge 25% of penalty imposed has not been allowed to the Appellant in the impugned order as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department. We find force in the contention of the Revenue. Also, we find under similar circumstances, on the imports made by other Appellants, in Jesons Industries Ltd. s case(supra) this Tribunal has already confirmed the demand and imposed penalty involving the same overseas supplier, wherein the country of origin was mis-declared as Singapore. Broadly, we do not find any difference between the facts stated in the said case and the present one. In the circumstances, the penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 against the Appellant is unsustainable. Accordingly, we confirm the penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner on the Appellant under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. However, the Appellants are entitled to discharge 25% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
