9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export) and the consignment of 299.33 carats imported which was not declared by the appellant at the time of import. Had there been complete co-relation between the export invoice and the import consignment, there could have been some justification for waiver of penalty. Penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 52 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2017 - A.S. Oka and Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Shri Abhishek A. Rastogi, i/b Khaitan Co., for the Petitioner. ORDER P.C. : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The challenge in this appeal is to a common judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench (for short Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the respondent was partly allowed by imposing penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(iii) of the Customs Act. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon two separate email messages received from David Yurman Inc., which recorded that the diamonds under the two consignments of 3rd November, 2011 and 28th November, 2011 will be returned. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Bill of Entry No. 810 was filed on the basis of airway bill. He pointed out that even a letter was submitted by appellant of the supplier admitting mistake which he committed through oversight and corrected Bills of Entry were submitted. His subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no duty on import of diamonds was considered. The Appellate Tribunal has rightly observed that it was a mitigating factor as observed by the adjudicating authority. 7. Another finding of fact recorded on the basis of the material on record is that there is no co-relation between export quantity and reimported quantity. As far as the penalty is concerned, in Paragraph 6, the Appellate Tribunal recorded a finding which reads thus : - I find that the exported in a letter to the appellants admitted that they had forgotten to include the 299.33 carats said to be related to the export invoice SA/111103 dated 3-11-2011, in the air way bill under which consignment of 485.37 carats was reimported. The appellants are a reputed company and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
