9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under CTH 70169000 with assessable value at Rs. 38,48,585/- in respect of each of the Bill of Entry. The goods were imported from M/s Guangdong Yongcheng Ceramics, China. Based on specific information, the above goods were intercepted by SIIB (import), JNCH, Nhava Sheva and the samples were drawn from the consignments for testing in the Customs Laboratory. The test reports revealed that the goods were "Agglomerated Marble" and not "Crystallised Glass Panel Grade B", as declared by the appellant. Accordingly, the department undertook detailed investigation into the matter and recorded statement of Shri Sumeet Agarwal, Proprietor of the appellant-importer under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The proprietor had admitted in his voluntary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 114AA ibid. On appeal against the adjudication order, the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II vide the impugned order dated 19.09.2019 has upheld the adjudged demands confirmed against the appellants, excepting the penalty imposed on the appellant-importer under Section 112(a)(i) ibid. To such extent, he has modified the adjudication order, in reducing the quantum of penalty from Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rs. 7,50,000/-. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 2. Shri Nirav Mainkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the purchase order was placed by the appellant-importer on the overseas supplier for supply of Crystallised Glass P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereas as per the test report obtained by the department, the same were reported to be 'Agglomerated Marble'; that the value in respect of both the category of goods were also different. Thus, there was misdeclaration in respect of both description and value of goods. Further, the subject goods were also imported in violation of the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy. All these aspects of statutory contravention were admitted and accepted by the Proprietor of the appellant-importer in the statement recorded under summon in terms of Section 108 ibid. Hence, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the penal consequences provided under Sections 111, 125(1), 112(a)(i) and 114AA ibid are attracted for confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat due to wrong shipment, owing to detention of goods by the port authorities, it had incurred heavy demurrage and detention charges. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer appellant can be reduced to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the impugned order on merits of the case, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 1,18,85,000/- to 18,00,000 (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only). We also reduce the penalty, imposed under Section 112 of Customs, Act, 1962 from Rs. 7,50,000 to Rs. 2,50,000 (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only). 7. Coming to the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-imposed, under Section 114AA ibid, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
