9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Act, 1994 readwith provisions for Additional Customs Duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on their import, readwith General Notes regarding import policy, were required to bear the declaration to the effect - no error of law and/or fact appears on the face of the record before us, except that in view of findings by this Tribunal, that the goods in question (mobile phones) were not found related to the bills of entry produced by importers namely M/s. Gold Manner Overseas and M/s. Waho Wireless Pvt. Ltd., we find that no penalty was imposable on these two applicants. In retaining the penalties on these two importers-applicants there have crept anomaly in order, as on the one hand their relation to the goods seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 at Lucknow on 15.07.2011 and upon primary inspection it appeared that the goods do not have the MRP/RSP printed or labelled either on the carton or individual packets of mobile phones which are mandatory requirement under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977. On reasonable belief that these goods were smuggled (third country origin goods), the said goods were detained for further inspection. Vide Order-in-Original dated 13.07.2012, the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow ordered for confiscation of the seized 77 cartons of China origin mobile phones, ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) d) M/s. Hari Om Couriers, Lucknow ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) e) Shri Nitin Bansal Prop. Of M/s. B M Technologies Company, Lucknow ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) f) Shri Dharmender Bansal ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) g) M/s Gold Manner Overseas, New Delhi ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) h) M/s Waho Wireless Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) i) Shri Jasbir Singh ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) j) Shri Vimal Shukla ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) k) Shri Saurabh Agarwal ₹ 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) l) Shri Pradeep Kumar ₹ 7,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 be confiscated by Commissioner under Section 111 (b) (d) of the Customs Act are concerned, it was observed that admittedly the mobile phones were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act and therefore the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the impugned goods were smuggled. It was further observed by this Tribunal that Revenue have failed to discharge onus on it with sustainable evidence that these goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. So far the penalty on other appellants are concerned the same stood modified as under :- a) Shri Arun Kumar Gupta ₹ 50,000/- b) Hari 0m Couriers ₹ 50,000/- c) Shri Nitin Bansal ₹ 2,00,000/- d) Shri Dharmender Bansal ₹ 2,00,000/- e) M/s Gold Manner Overseas ₹ 2,50,000/- f) M/s Waho Wireless Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 2,50,000/- g) Shri Jasbir Singh ₹ 1,25,000/- h) Shri Vimal Shukla ₹ 50,000/- i) Shri Saurabh Agarwal ₹ 37,500/- j) Shri Pradeep Kumar ₹ 1,75,000/- 6. We have heard both the parties at length. We find no error of law and/or fact appears on the face of the record before us, except that in view of findings by this Tribunal, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
