9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e importers. In fact, immediately after the fact of mis-declaration came to light, the importer conveyed the same to the foreign supplier who has instantly admitted mistake on their part and they were ready to take back the goods - Under such circumstances, the learned Commissioner (A) has rightly held that there was no malafide intention on the part of the importer and as such, imposition of penalty and redemption fine was not warranted. Imposing redemption fine and permission to re-export simultaneously - HELD THAT:- Learned Commissioner (A) held that as there was no malafide intention on the part of the importer and re-export being permitted, imposition of redemption fine and penalty was not warranted - it is found that once the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs (Port), vide Order-in-Original dated 01.06.2020, held that the mis-declaration happened without the knowledge of the importer; goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d), 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. He imposed redemption fine of ₹ 10,00,000/- - under Section 125 and penalty of ₹ 16,00,000/- under Section 112(a) (i) ibid. The respondent was also given an option to re-export the said goods. On an appeal filed by the respondent, Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 09.07.2020, set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed. 2. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the department reiterates the findings of the Order in Original and submits that wrongdoing on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed and therefore, no penalty and redemption fine can be imposed in view of ratio of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Impex vs. CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi: 2016 (332) ELT 835 (Tri. - Del.) which in turn relied upon the following: (i) Seimens Public Communication Networks Ltd. vs. CC (Airport), Calcutta: 2001 (137) ELT 623 (Tri.-Kolkata) (ii) Guru Ispat Ltd. vs. CC (Port), Calcutta: 2003 (151) ELT 384 (Tri.Kolkata) (iii) HCL Coment Systems Services Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi: 2003 (158) ELT 349 (Tri.-Del.) Ongoing through the Order-in-Original, we also find that the lower authority has concluded that though there was mis-declaration of brand and quality of goods imported, there was nothing on record to show that there was a mala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
