9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n have filed these misc. applications for rectification of mistake against common Final Order No. C/A/53724-53737/2015-CU[DB] dated 29.07.2015. It is further stated that the said Final Order was received by the appellants on 28.12.2015 and from that date the ROM have been filed within limitation of six months on 27th June, 2016. 2. It is further stated that the case in question (mobile phone of China origin) were imported by Wahoo Wireless Pvt. Ltd. and one M/s. Gold Manner Overseas and after proper payment of Customs duty were given out of charge. Further facts are that the certain goods being mobile phones of China origin were dispatched from New Delhi to Lucknow by rail on 15.07.2011. The said goods were intercepted by Customs Officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) Shri Saurabh Agarwal Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) (e) Shri Pradeep Kumar Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only)" Further mentioning that this option may be exercised within 30 days of the issuance of this order. Further, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 upon each of the following notices as indicated below. a) Shri Virendra Panday Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) b) Shri Arun Kumar Gupta Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) c) Shri Yogesh Kumar Mishra Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) d) M/s. Hari Om Couriers, Lucknow Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) e) Shri Nitin Bansal Prop. Of M/s. B M Technologies Company, Lucknow Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantity in terms of standard unit of weights and measures (d) Month and year of packing (e) Maximum retail sale price at which the commodity in packaged form may be sold to the ultimate consumer. 5. It was further observed by this Tribunal in the Final Order that there is no dispute of the fact that individual packets of mobile phones did not carry MRP in any manner normally in the form of print/sticker of MRP/RSP, which indicated that the aforesaid mobile phones of Chinese origin and other foreign origin goods contained in 77 cartons were confirming to the provisions of import. Thus, there was violation of the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act readwith the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy. So far the goods held liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances that penalty imposed on the appellants-claimants are on the higher side and need to be suitably moderated. Accordingly, this Tribunal held that no penalty was liable on Shri Virendra Kumar Pandey and Shri Mukesh Kumar and the same were set aside and also set aside penalty on i) Shri Ravindra Singh Proprietor of M/s. Gold Manner Overseas and ii) Yogesh Kumar Mishra Proprietor of Hari Om Couriers. So far the penalty on other appellants are concerned the same stood modified as under :- a) Shri Arun Kumar Gupta Rs. 50,000/- b) Hari 0m Couriers Rs. 50,000/- c) Shri Nitin Bansal Rs. 2,00,000/- d) Shri Dharmender Bansal Rs. 2,00,000/- e) M/s Gold Manner Overseas Rs. 2,50,000/- f) M/s Waho Wireless Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
