9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, examination of the goods in the said containers revealed that they were mis-declared and that the actual goods imported were found to be Opel Glassware and not Ceramic Dinner sets as declared. The original authority interalia rejected the declared description and declared value, re-determined the assessable value as Rs. 34,00,489/-, confirmed the demand of ADD of Rs. 37,46,319/-, confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- on the importer under Section 112 (a) ibid and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 9.60.000/- on Shri Mohammed Waji Khan, Director, M/s. Y.K. Enterprises under Section 114 AA of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the same to be restored. 5. None present on behalf of the importer, although notice had been issued to them. It is seen that the matter has been rolling on board from 2013 and that a number of adjournments have been sought and granted to the importer in a number of occasions till date. For this reason, the matter is being taken up for final disposal, notwithstanding the non-appearance of the appellant or their representative. 6. In the first place, it is noted that though while there is an element of imposition of ADD by the lower appellate authority, that is not the matter of dispute in the present appeal before this forum, both the department and the importer are aggrieved only on the issue of imposition of redemption fine/penaltie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of is reduced to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Appeal filed by the department is allowed on the above terms. 8. As regards the appeal filed by the importer, I find that in original adjudication, redemption fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- under Section 125 ibid was imposed on the offending goods, for the purpose of their redemption and clearance on payment of applicable duty to the DTA. The authority in the impugned order however permitted re-export of the goods on the same amount of redemption fine as per the prayer made by the importer. From para-3 of the impugned order it is seen that the prayer for re-export was made by the appellant for the reason that they cannot afford to pay the ADD. Taking into account the acts and omissions committed by the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
