9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stake due to fault of supplier is unacceptable and the proposition is rejected. Both redemption fine and penalty needs to be in proportion of the value of undeclared goods. In my considered view, ends of justice will be met if the redemption fine imposed by the lower authorities is reduced to ₹ 2 lakh and consequent penalties imposed is reduced to ₹ 50,000/- under Section 112(b)(ii) and ₹ 1 lakh under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/30428/2016 - Final Order No. 30701/2017 - Dated:- 7-6-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Sh. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stake, but it is due to the error of the supplier not forwarding the invoices which was in respect of excess furniture found in the container. It is further submits when a discrepancy is noticed on self-assessment of Bill of Entry, reassessment of duty can be done as provided under Section 17 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and only if the re-assessment not accepted, a speaking order needs to be passed. There was no requirement of issue speaking order in this case; lower authorities have confiscated the entire quantity vide the provisions of Section 111(1) of the Act which is invoked in this case only excess of those included in the Bill of Entry can be confiscated; even the Custom Appraising Manual stipulates that when a given consignment com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y considered view, since there is no dispute that there is mis-declaration of the goods contained in the consignment; is in itself a valid reason to hold that excess found goods are liable to be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. I find that the mis-declared quantity and value of goods is correctly confiscated, and appellants contention that error of as mis-declaration was a genuine mistake due to fault of supplier is unacceptable and the proposition is rejected. I find CBEC manual stipulates both Offending and non-offending goods, if placed separately; the non-offending shall be released and detain the offending part of the goods for the purpose of initiating adjudication proceedings. It is an admitted fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
