9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine is not justified - However, there is a mis-declaration in the Bills of Entry and the imposition of penalty is warranted. However, the quantum of penalty is excessive and the same is required to be reduced. Redemption fine set aside - penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part. - Cus.Appeal No.70002/13 - F/O/76645/2018 & FO/75645/2018 - Dated:- 27-3-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri V. K. Singh, Adv. for the Appellant (s) Shri S. N. Mitra, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary : This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order-in-Original No.Kol./Cus/Port/76/2012 dated 22.09.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-assessment of the Bill of Entry and for encashment of the Bank Guarantee was issued. Hence, the appellant filed this appeal. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued the matter at length. He submitted that the appellant produced the valid duty exemption certificate at the time of import of machine under Bill of Entry dated 14.08.2007. The dispute arose when the Assessing Officer raised the query to explain the declared value on 28.08.2007 and the appellant submitted revised invoice dated 11.01.2008 vide their letter dated 21.01.2008 stating that the error in the invoice was purely unintentional and due to oversight on the part of the foreign supplier. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attached with the aforesaid exemption notification have been duly fulfilled by the importers. In this connection, I find that M/s RVNL, the appropriate project authority, vide their letter dated 08.01.2008 have categorically confirmed that the machinery imported under the Bill of Entry No.358899 dated 14.08.2007 has reached Raipur and was under inspection and installation. I also find that no value of the said machine was mentioned in the aforesaid duty exemption certificate. However, the quantity of such machines approved for duty free import was duly mentioned therein. Therefore, I find that value of the machine was not a limiting factor for import under the aforesaid duty exemption certificate. Had the importer declared the correct cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962 provides that any goods which do not correspond in respect of the value with the entry made under this Act shall be liable for confiscation. 8. I find that the Adjudicating authority allowed the amendment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Act, 1962 and therefore the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine is not justified. However, there is a mis-declaration in the Bills of Entry and the imposition of penalty is warranted. However, the quantum of penalty is excessive and the same is required to be reduced. 9. In view of the above discussion, the impugned Order is modified to the extent that redemption fine is set aside and the penalty is reduced to ₹ 1 Lakh. The appeal is disposed of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
