9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import any prohibited goods and simply produce an e-mail or a letter from their overseas supplier saying that prohibited goods were sent to them by mistake. Holding such a view would defeat all the legal provisions of the country under various enactments with respect to restrictions on imports. The goods in question are liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. Redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority was already reduced by the first appellate authority to ₹ 3,50,000/- which is a fair amount of redemption fine and we find no reason to interfere with it. Penalty - HELD THAT:- In so far as the penalty under Section 112(a) is concerned, the penalties imposed on the importer firm also need to be u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy and therefore, the marble slabs were seized and show cause notices were issued to the appellants. After following due process, the lower authority vide his Order-in-Original No. 29/2011, dated 31-3-2011, rejected the declaration made in the Bill of Entry as 611 Sq. Mt. of marble slabs and held that the quantity was 861.03 Sq. Mt. on physical examination. He also revised the value of the goods accordingly and confirmed the duty of ₹ 5,01,646/- on the re-determined value of ₹ 21,30,608 /- under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. He appropriated the duty already paid by the appellant towards this demand. He also ordered payment of interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. He confiscated the marble slabs which we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant submits that they had actually placed an order for polished marble slabs but they have wrongly received unpolished marble slabs instead and this mistake was admitted by their overseas supplier in the correspondence which they had made after importation. He also submits that additional quantity of marble received was also on account of this mistake. He therefore, prays that the confiscation of the imported marble and the penalties imposed on the importer, the Director of the importer and the CHA may be set aside. He also presents before us copies of letters which they have received from their suppliers when they have enquired from them about the supply of unpolished marble. 4. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il or a letter from their overseas supplier saying that prohibited goods were sent to them by mistake. Holding such a view would defeat all the legal provisions of the country under various enactments with respect to restrictions on imports. We, therefore, find that the goods in question are liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. Redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority was already reduced by the first appellate authority to ₹ 3,50,000/- which is a fair amount of redemption fine and we find no reason to interfere with it. In so far as the penalty under Section 112(a) is concerned, the penalties imposed on the importer firm also need to be upheld and we do so. As far as the personal penalty is concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
