9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which cannot be considered to be negligible - Appellant cannot therefore get away without any imposition of penalty since there has been misdeclaration of the GSM in respect of such large quantity of the goods imported. A reduced penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- u/s 112 (a) (ii) of the Customs Act would meet the ends of justice - appeal allowed in part. - C/356/2010 - A/40109/2018 - Dated:- 11- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the limits indicated in the licences. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing denial of the notification benefit, reclassification of fabrics having more than 200 GSM, confiscation of 1,83,432 sq. Mtr of fabrics valued at ₹ 58,50,665/- under Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, recovery of differential duty of ₹ 43,10,731/- and also imposition of pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority to contend that the said authority correctly found that wrong claim of classification cannot lead to the allegation of misstatement and suppression on their part and that appellant did not have any intent to circumvent the law. He further submits that in the absence of allegation or finding of misdeclaration of material particulars such as description, quantity and valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) is very much in order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. The original authority has given an exhaustive reasoning for not confiscating the goods and for not imposing the penalty under Section 112. Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that there is variance in respect of at least around 40% of the goods imported, which cannot be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
