9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate) For Respondent: Shri. G. Jha, A.R. ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both the sides. 2. This is an appeal filed against order-in-appeal No.MUN-CUSTOM-000-APP-384-15-16 dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Ahmedabad. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant, a shipping line has transported the cargo from Pakistan to India imported by M/s Archana Traders from the overseas supplier M/s Sitara Trading Karachi. The importer M/s Archana Traders, New Delhi was requested to clear the goods by filing proper documents and adopting relevant procedures under the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were though arrived on 15.10.2014 and shipped to CFS (Container freight station), h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld against the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that in the Show Cause Notice, it was alleged against the appellant that they have connived and colluded with the shipper in bringing the offended goods i.e. Arecanut Betelnut Splits to India, hence liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that even though, both the authorities below had recorded that the appellant was not in connivance or collusion with shipper or importer in getting the cargo cleared but erroneously held that they are liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, travelling beyond the scope of allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, I find that the appellant being shipping line filed two IGMs for two bills of lading; requested for re-export of the consignment as per the request of the shipper as the importer has not made payment to the shipper and it is not forthcoming from the records that the appellant was involved in mis-declaration of country of origin or mis-use of exemption notification. Also no malafide intention on the part of the appellant has been proved by the department, penalty imposed by the lower authority is required to be reduced. I order accordingly. 7. Even though the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) analyzing the facts and evidences on record has reduced the penalty to ₹ 25,000/- however, the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
