9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with the fact that the bill of entry assessed by the appraising officer did not contain element of anti-dumping duty persuades us to hold that the failure on the part of the appellant was only a bona fide omission. Further, sub-Section (2) of Section 28 provides that if a person is chargeable to duty or interest and the duty along with interest as ascertained by the proper officer is paid, then no show cause notice shall be served and no penalties to be imposed. In such circumstances we are of the considered view, that the confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty is totally unjustified. The impugned order is therefore not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/52522-52523/2015 - F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay ADD, paid ADD for both the consignments along with applicable interest and requested for release of the present consignment. The goods were not released. The impugned order was passed confiscating the goods valued ₹ 86,11,532/- with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 30 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the said order, the Commissioner besides ordering appropriation of ADD and interest that was already paid by the appellant, imposed penalty of ₹ 20 lakhs on the appellant company and separate penalty of ₹ 50 lakhs on the director under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire duty the goods were not released. The appellant then requested to warehouse the consignment vide letter dated 23-3-2015. Thereafter vide letter dated 26-5-2015 appellant requested to treat the proceedings as concluded as per provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, since the appellant had already paid the duty along with interest. But the Commissioner failed to heed to the request of the appellant and proceeded to pass the impugned order confiscating the goods and imposing redemption fine and penalties. It is submitted that the description, value, quantity etc., declared by the appellant while filing Bill of Entry were correct and the Department has no dispute regarding these aspects. So also the goods imported are not prohibite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11-6-2014 extended the period. According to the appellants they were not aware of this further notification dated 11-6-2014 extending the period of the notification. The omission to pay the duty was only due to the ignorance of this fact and it was not willful. On examination of records, the submission of the appellant that the check list of the Bill of entry generated by the system did not show levy of ADD is correct. The appellant made online payment of the duty so assessed by officer. On being informed about the levy of duty, the appellant has immediately paid the ADD not only for the present consignment but also for the earlier consignment with interest. The director of the Company Shri Sameer Goyal has deposed that the omission occur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
