9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by it. So far as the issue of confiscation of impugned goods is concerned, we are of the view that the provisions of clause (m) of Section 111 ibid is attracted, inasmuch as, the value and declaration of the goods made in the post parcel do not correspond to the actual goods imported by the appellant. Thus, confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine in the impugned order is sustainable under the law - however, the quantum of redemption fine need to be reduced. Penalty u/s 112 and 114 AA of the Act - Held that: - the statute mandates that penalty can be imposed for use of false and incorrect material, the authorities have to prove that in fact, the person concerned has deceived the exchequer for his wrongful gain - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962, with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 40,00,000/-. Further, the impugned order has also imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- under Section 112 and 114 AA of the Act. 2. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant argued the matter at length on merit. It is submitted that memory cards are classifiable under sub-heading No.85235220 and not under 85235100, as claimed by the Department. It is also submitted that even the memory cards are classifiable under sub-heading No.85235100, as claimed by the Revenue, still the same are covered by the exemption Notification No.24/2005-Cus., dated 01.03.2005, as amended, in respect of the Customs duty leviable thereon. Thus, he submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Duty under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 01.03.2005, as amended. Further, the CBEC vide Circular dated 20.07.2016 has also clarified that the benefit of the said notification is extendable to Micro/Mini SD cards classified under CTH 85235100. Thus, it is apparent that change in classification of subject goods by the Department will not create any additional Basic Customs Duty liability for the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the Basic Customs Duty on the imported goods, even under the classification made by the Department, which was different than the classification made by it. 6. With regard to mis-declaration of the imported goods in question, the contentions of the appellant are that the declaration re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant had not made any false declaration with regard to the actual content in the parcel, filed proper documents for assessment of the Bill of Entry, paid applicable duty. Therefore, in the interest of justice and keeping in view of possible benefit of Commercial profit on such import, the quantum of redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 20,00,000/-. 8. We note that the impugned order has confiscated the impugned goods and imposed penalties on the ground that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Section 82 of the Act. In case of import of goods by post parcel, a deeming fiction has been created in Section 82 ibid, providing that any label or declaration accompanying the goods should be deemed to be an entry for import, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
