9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should have got the matter verified and confirmed from the exporter. For this, he replied that even the exporter is not fully aware of the contents of the shipped consignments. We find such situation is totally untenable and this cannot be the basis for a claim that the appellants are not liable for any mis-declaration made in the bill of entry. On their own admission it is clear that the value declared in the B.E. is not acceptable in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Held that: - We note that for goods valued at ₹ 44.39 lakhs and ₹ 19.61 lakhs redemption fine of ₹ 10 lakhs and ₹ 4 lakhs have been fixed. We note the said redemption fine is on the higher side as per the standards generally adopted in respect of fixing of redemption fine - the goods have been re-exported. The appellant, apparently could not sell these items in domestic market for any profit. Considering the facts of the case, we find the fines could be fixed at ₹ 5 lakhs and ₹ 2 lakhs - penalty imposed on the main appellant is also accordingly reduced to ₹ 2 lakhs. Penalty on the second appellant, Customs Broker - Held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with a permission to redeem on payment of fine of ₹ 10,00,000/- and ₹ 4,00,000/- respectively, under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Option to re-export the goods was also given to the importer. A penalty of ₹ 4,50,000/- on the main appellant and ₹ 2,00,000/- on the second appellant was imposed in terms of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that initially there was a mistake while filing the bill of entry as they have not considered the second invoice which covered goods that were also shipped alongwith the first consignment. As soon as they realized the position, CHA (second appellant) filed request for amendment of bill of entry and also first check examination of the goods. They were not fully aware of the complete contents of the imported items and accordingly requested for first examination before assessment of the goods. The learned Consultant pleaded that they have no intention to mis-declare any items. The main appellant is importing these items for the past 10 years from the similar set of suppliers. Earlier they had no problem of such lack of full details on the import consignmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the sides and perused the appeal records. It is clear that initially the appellants filed a bill of entry with one invoice and thereafter requested for amendment by adding another invoice of the same date. The description and the quantity of the import consignments were also amended. However, on detailed examination it is noticed that even after amendment there were wide variations between the declared items and the actual import. There were violations of BIS/IPR regulations in respect of certain items. The findings of the Original Authority with reference to mis-declaration are categorical and revealing :- 22. The inference that is evident from the examination report and the subsequent correspondence between the Group and the Shed is that there was gross mis-declaration in the quantity of goods as well as their description by the importer. These differences are already brought out in columns 3,4 5 of Table C at para 12 above. What is noteworthy is that the differences are quite significant as against the declared quantity of 21,456 RAMs (S. No.1 and 2 of the Table C), a total quantity of 31,072 (44% more) were actually found. Moreover, they were declared to be unbrande ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments. It is expected that a bonafide importer will be aware of the contents of items imported by him. During the course of argument, the learned Consultant was specifically asked that in case the importer was apprehending any mix up of the consignments he should have got the matter verified and confirmed from the exporter. For this, he replied that even the exporter is not fully aware of the contents of the shipped consignments. We find such situation is totally untenable and this cannot be the basis for a claim that the appellants are not liable for any mis-declaration made in the bill of entry. It is also clear that being aware of the standing instructions and the practice followed by Assessing Authorities in respect of such sensitive consignments, the appellants asked for first check examination. This is apparently to avoid the penal consequences that may arise in case the authorities find out discrepancies upon detailed examination of the import cargo. We are not convinced with the submissions of the appellants regarding their bonafide act with reference to the clearance of the present impugned consignments. Accordingly, the charge of mis-declaration against the main appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
