9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.3.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the basis of intelligence gathered by Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), the original authority formed an opinion that M/s. Flomic Freight Services Pvt. Ltd., (Freight Forwarders) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, 1962. After following the due process of law, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the appellant, Director of M/s. Ace Fine Pack Pvt. Ltd. under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 vide order dated 21.7.2015 for his willful involvement in the evasion of duty by fabrication of import documents. 3. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Director to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- is not warranted. He further submitted that as per the Circular No.11/2016-Cus. dated 15.3.2016, it is provided that the duty with interest and penalty has been paid in full, then, proceedings in respect of such person or other persons to whom the notice is served under sub-section (1) of Section 4, shall, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 135, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty equal to 25% of the duty specified in the notice, then the proceedings against the importer as well as against the co-noticee shall stand concluded. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. Therefore, I allow the appeal of the appellant and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 15/05/2017.) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
