9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g as required under Legal Metrology Rules - the averment of the appellants that they were ready with the MRP stickers to be affixed after examination does not wash. Confiscation of the 3950 cell phones upheld - main infraction related to only because of affixation of M.R.P stickers, the interest of justice would be served by causing reduction of the redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Act from ₹ 12,75,000/- to ₹ 6,00,000/-. Penalty u/s 112 (a) ibid on Quick Systems - Held that: - penalty reduced from ₹ 7 lakhs to ₹ 3,00,000/-. Penalty on CHA, Masha Allah Agencies - Held that: - there is no evidence has been brought forth to substantiate any wilful abetment or causing of any act or omission on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter had not registered with Legal Metrology Department as required within 90 days of Rule 27 (1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Appellants have submitted that 400 nos. of cell phones were not ordered by them and they abandoned the said 400 nos. of cell phones. A show cause notice dt. 24.08.2011 was issued to Shri A. Sheik Mohammed, Proprietor of Quick Systems and Shri M.S. Mohammed Adam, the proprietor of M/s.Masha Alla Agencies, CHA. This SCN culminated in an adjudication order dt. 2.9.2011 (importer) wherein the authority has (i) confiscated 400 nos. of cell phones in contravention of IPR Rules and abanded by importer under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (ii) confiscated remaining 3950 cell phones va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 7 lakhs imposed on M/s.Quick Systems cannot be sustained. 2.2 With regard to appeal filed by M/s.Masha Allah Agencies, imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (C/281/2011) Ld. Advocate submits that nowhere in the SCN or in the impugned order is there any allegation that the CHA had connived or abetted or was in a conspiracy to cause violation of Customs Act and rendered the goods imported liable to confiscation. In fact, when the goods itself are nto liable for confiscation as argued earlier, there cannot be any penalty imposable on the CHA. 3.1 On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri A. Cletus supports the impugned order. He points out that out of charge order had been issued in respect of the impugned goods. The appellants had therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the MRP stickers to be affixed after examination does not wash. They had to be either imported with the necessary affixation or permission had to be sought from the customs immediately after import to cause affixation of the stickers in the docks/CFS premises. 7. Viewed in this light, we do not any infirmity with the order of confiscation of the 3950 cell phones under Section 111 9d0 ibid. However, taking all aspects of the matter and taking note that the main infraction related to only because of affixation of M.R.P stickers, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be served by causing reduction of the redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Act from ₹ 12,75,000/- to ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
