9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty. No statement or other evidence has been put forth to establish such intent or evasion of duty either. The appellant being no more than a declared consignee in the subject consignment, has also not remitted any payment against the said goods and exercised no rights of ownership thereon either. Section 30(3) of the Act provides that “If the proper officer is satisfied that the import manifest or import report is in any way incorrect or incomplete, and that there was no fraudulent intention, he may permit it to be amended or supplemented” - It is unfathomable that the desire to ensure that the shipping documents were consistent with each other and fully reconciled with the shipping goods, could be attributed to a fraudulent intention. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen requested the appellant to clear the goods and it was then that the appellant came to know of the order placed by Mr. Nayyar. The order had been placed for two items, pumps and calculators, in the name of the appellant s concern M/s. Janvi Impex. The appellant accepted the order and orally conveyed his consent to Mr. Nayyar. However, the appellant soon realised that the order placed is not economically viable and accordingly, told Mr. Nayyar to cancel the order and sell it to another importer. The Ld. Counsel further stated that Mr. Nayyar made persistent requests to the appellant and finally, the appellant reluctantly gave in to Mr. Nayyar s perseverance. The appellant then realised that the Bill of Lading dated-19.08.2015 reflected on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 15 Lakhs. 3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. On perusal of records, I find that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that in the access of any Bill of Entry which is yet to be filed by the assessee/consignee, there can be no scope for alleged evasion of anti dumping or basic customs duty. No statement or other evidence has been put forth to establish such intent or evasion of duty either. The appellant being no more than a declared consignee in the subject consignment, has also not remitted any payment against the said goods and exercised no rights of ownership thereon either. The appellant is yet to self assess its duty lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriated to attribute fraudulent intention of the consignee, the appellant herein and thereby rejected the amendment of the said IGM. 7. However, it is unfathomable that the desire to ensure that the shipping documents were consistent with each other and fully reconciled with the shipping goods, could be attributed to a fraudulent intention. Such implication makes 30 (3) of the Act totally redundant. In the event of the amendment being proper, there can be no basis for imposing fine or penalty in terms of Section 111(f), 111(g) or 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that in the absence of finding of a fraudulent intention and the need for adjudication of the application for amendment, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
