9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs custody up to 18th June, 2010 till the request for amendment was made by the Shipping Line. Except the statement of the proprietor of the appellant firm and Managing Director of the intended importer M/s Diamond Mink Blankets Ltd. recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, other documentary evidence on record is available to substantiate that appellant was earlier engaged in mis-declaration or undervalued imported goods and not a single reference like bill of entry number is made to that effect that would provide any detail concerning involvement of appellant in previous occasions. It appears to be a self-exculpatory statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, but no materials evidence on record has been placed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Chavan, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Upholding the Order-in-Original that imposed redemption fine of ₹ 10,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 111(f) and penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is assailed by the appellant in this appeal. 2. Factual backdrop of the case in brief is that IGM No. 20705/2008 dated 25.10.2008 was filed at JNCH figuring 100% Polyester Filament Yarn Raw White with importer name M/s Vallabh Wool Industries, Ludhiana but the said goods remained as unclaimed for almost two years. Earlier Alert Circular dated 03.11.2008 (RUD- 1) was issued by Central Intelligence Unit (CIU) of JNCH that so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. During course of hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Anil Balani submitted that owing to mis-declaration made by the exporter, appellant had neither released the import documents from the bank upon payment nor filed bills of entry for release of goods but penalty has been imposed on it. Prematurely since cause of action would have arisen after filing the bills of entry for clearance of goods. He further submitted, with reference to judicial decisions report in 2018 (359) ELT 593 (Tri.-Del.) in the case of R.S. Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, reported in 2015 (330) ELT 651 (Tri.- Del.) in the case Maiden Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs ICD, TKD, New Delhi and other case laws to sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke bill of entry number is made to that effect that would provide any detail concerning involvement of appellant in previous occasions. In respect of the consignment under dispute proprietor Mr. Hemraj Jain of appellant firm stated that discrepancy (in the description) of the product came to its knowledge during interactions with shipper while enquiring about the documents for which appellant refused to receive the goods and not honoured the imported documents received by the bank and verbally over phone informed the matter to the exporter, after which it had no knowledge about the developments concerning the imported goods. It appears to be a self-exculpatory statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, but no materials evidence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
