9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The seller is thus responsible for import, clearance, duties and taxes that have to be paid. It is therefore the responsibility of MM Traders. Further in the Show Cause Notice, the allegation is that the appellant has not obtained document from M/s. V.V. Iron Steel Company Ltd. There is no allegation that the appellant has knowingly and intentionally abetted any misdeclaration of goods. The authorities below, though have come to the conclusion that the appellant has abetted making false declaration in the Bill of Entry, there is no iota of evidence furnished by the department to support this conclusion. Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- There is nothing to establish or prove that the appellant has knowingly or intentionally abe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m House, Tuticorin, it was noticed that there were 384 nos. of MS iron plates of size 10 ft. x 5.25 ft. with 5 mm thickness were concealed along with declared cargo as heavy melting scrap. Weight of the iron plates concealed inside the said consignment was 102.520 MTs and that of the HMS scrap was 31.01 MTs. Show Cause Notice was issued to parties along with the appellant herein alleging mis-declaration of the goods. It was alleged against the appellant that they had not obtained any authorization or document from M/s. V.V. Iron Steel Company Ltd. on behalf of whom they have filed Bill of Entry. After due process of law, the original authority rejected the declaration of description given in the Bill of Entry, imposed penalty of Rs. One l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstead of loading the plates after cutting, the overseas supplier has loaded the goods as such. There was no mis-declaration and the allegation is only because plates were not cut into sizes. It is also argued by him that the purchases made by M/s. V.V. Iron Steel Company Ltd. on high sea sale basis was a DDP transaction wherein the seller has to bear the cost, risk and responsibility for the goods cleared. In the present case, there was an agreement between MM Traders and M/s. V.V. Iron Steel Company Ltd. that the sale is a DDP transaction. The appellant has therefore received the document from MM Traders who are responsible for all risks with regard to clearance of goods. The appellant therefore has no knowledge or liability as to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing to establish or prove that the appellant has knowingly or intentionally abetted to make false declaration in the Bill of Entry. Therefore, the penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot sustain. The penalty imposed under section 114AA would be attracted only if the person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect. In the present case, as I have already held that the appellant has not abetted in mis-declaration of the goods, the penalty imposed under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 also cannot sustain. 7. From the discussions made above, the impugned order is set aside insofar as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
