9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committee on finance but also on the ground that a separate penalty cannot be imposed on the proprietors when penalty on the proprietorship concern has been imposed - It is a settled law that a separate penalty cannot be imposed on the proprietor when the penalty on proprietorship firm has been imposed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/10537/2018-DB - A/11223/ 2018 - Dated:- 20-6-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Shri Raju, Member (Technical) For Applicant(s) : Sh. L. Patra (A.R.) For Respondent(s) : Sh. M. Karthikeyan (Advocate) ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The Revenue filed present appeal against M/s Raj Traders, M/s Ideal Impex and Shri Gurvinder Singh Kochar, Shri Vimal Shah and Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents have also filed appeals wherein this tribunal vide order no. A/11006-008/2018 upheld the confiscation of goods. Therefore, the penalty under section 114AA is inevitable and the same needs to be imposed. 3. On the other hand, Shri M. Kartikeyan, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that from the 27th report of standing committee on Finance, the intention behind penalty under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 is to penalise fraudulent export only. Therefore, even if there is no express mentioned in the sec 114AA, the reliance placed by the Ld. Commissioner on the report of standing committee on finance is not incorrect. Moreover, the penalty under section 114AA in respect of Shri Vimal Shah, proprietor Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial- if a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement of document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purpose of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods. From the plain reading of above section 114AA we find that it nowhere suggests that penalty is imposable only in cases of export of goods and not on import of goods. Since, there is no explicit mention in this regard the section 114AA shall apply to all the cases irrespective whether it is related to import or export. Therefore, we do not agree with the finding of the Ld. Commissioner, at least to the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds imported by M/s Ideal Impex, New Delhi, he could not explain the convincing reason for the single rate for different size of panels ranging from 32 to 75 . Thus, Shri Gurvinder Singh Kochhar appears to have knowingly concerned himself with the goods which were deliberately mis-declared in terms of BIS registration, description and value by M/S. Raj Traders, Mumbai and M/s Ideal Impex, New Delhi. He knew or had reasons to believe that the LED TV of Samsung and Sony brands and assorted panels of Sony LED TV were liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. By the above mentioned acts of omission and commission on the part of Shri Gurvinder Singh Kochhar he had rendered himself liable for penal action und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mandated system for assessment of duty. In the absence of any evidence of contemporaneous imports to support the enhancement, and the failure to taken into consideration factors that may had the effect of abating the value at which imports were made by M/s Sony India Ltd, we are unable to assent to the finding of misdeclaration. Consequently, the confiscation of SONY television sets under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 for misdeclaration of value is not correct in law. As the SAMSUNG television sets are required to be re-exported without being cleared on payment of duty, valuation is not relevant. Considering also that these are not to be permitted entry into the domestic market, the fine in lieu of confiscation need not be of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear that the bench taking a very linient view only imposed a redemption find that too in respect of SAMSUNG Television, whereas confiscation of other goods was set aside. In case of Samsung also, redemption fine was reduced to ₹ 5 lakhs as against ₹ 50 lakhs imposed by the adjudicating authority. The bench has set aside the penalty imposed under section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act, 1962. Considering the order of this Tribunal which is against the common order and following the judicial discipline, we are of the view that since on the same charges, the penalty under section 112(a)(1) is set aside, the penalty under section 114AA is also not imposable. Accordingly, we are of the view that the proposal of the Revenue in the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
