9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en manufactured by them, before the Customs authority. In any event, the appellant have not denied the mis-declaration of the goods. Therefore, confiscation of the Mobile consignment and imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant no. 1 is justified - there is no reason to impose penalty on Shri Ram Bharosi Gupta, appellant no. 2 as Authorised Signatory of the appellant no. 1 company. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. C/70859, 70860/2013 - FO/75242-75243/2018 - Dated:- 9-3-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Debaditya Banerjee, Advocate, Shri R.N. Bandopadhyay, Consultant, Ms. Debi Parbat, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Sri S.N. Mitra, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof that the seized goods were in the process, to be illegally smuggled into Nepal. The Learned Counsel strongly dismissed the findings of the Adjudicating authority. The appellant claimed that the goods would be exported in terms of the Indo Nepal Treaty. The relevant provision of Indo Nepal Treaty is reproduced as under: Article III of the Indo-Nepal Treaty i.e. AGREEMENT OF CO-OPERATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL To CONTROL UNAUTHORIZED TRADE w.e.f. 27.10.2009, provides interalia , Subject to such exception as may be mutually agreed upon, each Contracting party shall prohibit re-exports to the territory of the other Contracting Party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and in case of any conflict, the provision of Indo Nepal Treaty shall prevail. It is seen from the impugned Order that there was a mis-declaration by the appellant no. 1 regarding the origin of the goods as well as that the goods have been manufactured by them, before the Customs authority. In any event, the appellant have not denied the mis-declaration of the goods. Therefore, confiscation of the Mobile consignment and imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant no. 1 is justified. Taking into account the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to impose penalty on Shri Ram Bharosi Gupta, appellant no. 2 as Authorised Signatory of the appellant no. 1 company. 6. In view of the above discus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
