9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demption fine imposed in lieu of the confiscation is reduced, I reduce the redemption fine of ₹ 7,00,000/- to ₹ 4,00,000/- consequently penalty imposed on the importer-appellant u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is also reduced to ₹ 2,00,000/- from 3,00,000/- - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/831/07-MUM - A/85885/17/SMB - Dated:- 16-2-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri N D George, Advocate for Appellant Shri V R Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 54/2007 dated 12th June 2007. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of the imported goods as requested, following provisions of Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules using reasonable means consistent with principles and general provisions of these rules read with sub section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said enhancement value was accepted by the importer-appellant and is discharged the duty liability. The adjudicating authority ordered for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(d) and (m) for the Customs Act, 1962 and permitted the importer-appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine in lieu of redemption imposed the penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Learned Counsel submits that non-production of Pre-shipmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arged the Customs duty, there is no doubt such consignment is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 in as much there was mis-declaration. I find that the adjudicating authority has correctly confiscated the goods for mis-declaration value of the goods, to that extent the impugned order is correct and does not require any interference. However the adjudicating authority in the facts and circumstances of this case, seems to have imposed penalty despite there being nothing in the consignment which was put through to 100%, despite this, in my view is not enough reason for imposing such a harsh penalty. In my considered view, ends of justice would be met if the redemption fine imposed in lieu of the confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
