9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported is restricted - confiscation upheld. Considering the fact that the appellant is the actual user and there is no malafide intention in not obtaining the licence the appellant deserve leniency - the redemption fine and penalty in the impugned order is at higher side which needs to be reduced. Appeal allowed in part. - APPEAL NO: C/320/2009 - A/85369/2018 - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Vinod Awtani, Chartered Accountant for the appellant Shri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant filed bill of entry for the clearance of Royal Barge marble slabs valued at US ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d marble took place in December 2008. In the meantime, appellant obtained the EPCG licence wherein import of marble was allowed subject to condition that the CIF value of imported marble should not be less than US $ 50 PSM. The appellant vide their letter dated 11/12/2008 agreed to pay duty assessed at CIF value of US $ 50 PSM for the marble slabs imported as per the Policy. He submits that the appellant did not have any mala fide intention and violations of the conditions specified in the Notification. Any violation of the conditions specified in the Notification was due to bonafide belief that marble was of OGL item. He submits that as per ITC (HS) classification of marble under import is classified under Chapter Heading 6802 9910 and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he value of the goods is US $ 38.470 PSM. Thus they have violated the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy for import of marble. Therefore, the goods was rightly liable to confiscation. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Krishna Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2014 (300) ELT 98 (Tri. Delhi). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that there is no dispute that the appellant have contravened the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy by which goods valued below US $ 50 falls under the restricted category for which the licence is required for import. Though the appellant have imported goods valued at US $ 38.470 PSM CIF but did not obtain the licence. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
