9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds through courier service. In any case, the impugned order did not bring out the exact violation committed by the custodian with reference to the present cargo, which will attract penalty under the provisions of Customs Act. The custodian did not file any documents containing improper particulars nor abetted any such improper importation or subsequent clearance - impugned order did not bring any act or omission on the part of the custodian in order to attract a penalty under Customs Act, 1962 - penalty set aside. The appeal filed by M/s. Sardana Enterprises dismissed except for reduction of fine and penalty and the appeal by M/s. Express Industry Council of India allowed. Appeal disposed off. - Customs Appeals Nos.60465 & 59442/2013 - Final Orders Nos.50107 to 50108/2017 - Dated:- 12-1-2018 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Bharat Bhushan Sharma/Ms.Renuka Singh, Advocates for the appellants Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran These two appeals are against common impugned order dated 28.03.2013 of Commissioner of Customs (Export), Airport, New Delhi. The impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per HAWB goods are consigned to Mr. Tarun, M/s. Raja Traders and M/s. Xtra Image, the same were placed under seizure vide Seizure Panchnama dated 23.04.2012 upon reason to believe that the same are liable for confiscation. (iii) On 25.4.2012, Shri Balwinder Singh, Director of M/s. Cruze Couriers Pvt. Ltd. received a mail from M/s.Taj Express Courier containing Export Manifest and invoices, which shows that the goods were sent by M/s. Panash Goup and M/s. Shenzhen Imaging Co. These documents were submitted at the time of recording of his statement. (iv) As per Export Manifest, consignees are M/s. Sardana Enterprises, M/s. JMS Infotech, Mr. Tarun and Mr. Vikash Kumar. (v) Copy of HAWBs submitted along with Export Manifest shows the name of the consignee changed from M/s. Raja Traders to M/s. Sardana Enterprises and from M/s. Xtra Image to M/s. JMS Infotech by striking out the earlier names. No logical explanation in this regard was provided by consignor or consignees. It appears that M/s. Sardana Enterprises and M/s. JMS Infotech first tried to smuggle 90,000 (25,000 + 25,000 + 15,000) Memory Cards by mis-declaring and reflecting wrong names in HAWB without any addr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 15 lakhs in terms of Section 125 of the Act. The value of the imported goods was re-determined at ₹ 57,69,008/- with a duty liability of ₹ 5,39,747/-. A penalty of ₹ 2 lakh under Section 112(a) with a further penalty of ₹ 5,39,747/- under Section 114 AA of the Act were imposed on Shri Gopal Sardana, Proprietor of M/s.Sardana Enterprises. 6. Ld. Counsel appearing for M/s.Sardana Enterprises submitted that the said goods were imported by them on credit basis from Hong Kong. The mistake committed by the courier at shipping end in Hong Kong by not giving proper address or not including the invoice along with the consignment cannot be held against the appellant. When the error was noticed, correction was carried out. They have also submitted proper invoice for the imported goods. It is prayed that as they have already paid the redemption fine, penalty and duty, the goods should be released in good condition to them. The same has not been done by the Customs Authorities in spite of the repeated requests. It appears that the goods have been stolen from the warehouse and the appellant is put to financial loss. The Ld. Counsel also pleaded that the redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Panash Group as they had told him that the goods would be cleared from Customs by the person of Taj International and the duty was to be paid by the courier company at the time of clearance and at the time of delivery he was to pay duty to the courier company. This statement establishes the complicity of the individuals in the matter. Shri Gopal Sardana also admitted that he got a phone call from Taj International informing that he had to go the Customs Office for clearance of these goods. The said chain of events therefore clearly exposes the unholy intentions of the Noticees. 10. Regarding valuation, we note that the invoice submitted by the appellant did not carry the brand name of the product and also the country of origin. The goods have been made in China, Korea and Thiawan. 11. We are in agreement with the Original Authority regarding rejection of value declared by the appellant and re-determination of value based on the contemporaneous imports of similar goods. We also note that the appellant did not make any substantial or specific submission contesting the valuation of the imported goods. In fact, as pleaded by them, on payment of customs duty, fine and pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndling cargo. This was held to be in violation of Regulation 6 (1)(h) of 2009 Regulations. The said Regulation stipulates that the custodian shall not permit for import cargo to enter the customs area or to be unloaded therein without the import report or import manifest having been filed by the proper officer. We note that the provisions of Section 117 can be invoked against any person, who contravenes any provisions of Customs Act or fails to comply with any provisions of the said Act with which it was his duty to comply. Section 117 is a miscellaneous provision for imposition of penalty, where no other provisions will apply. In the present case, the impugned order records that the loose administration by the appellant, who is a custodian of import cargo resulted in the attempt to improper import of the impugned goods. We note that the consignment from Hong Kong has landed in New Delhi through courier. The courier consignment did not contain the required particulars of recipient‟s name and full address and also declaration regarding its content. No documents for clearance of such cargo have been filed with the customs. The goods have been intercepted based on a prior inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
