9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of mis-declaration of goods in description as well as in quantity in bills of landing. 2. The facts of the case are that one consignment was imported by one importer namely M/s Kuber Castings Pvt Ltd and decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seal of the container was intact, in that circumstance, penalty on the shipping line cannot be imposed. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of S.K. Colombowala vs. CC (Import) Mumbai reported in 2007 (220) ELT 492 (Tri. Mumbai) to say that when the main importer has gone to the Settlement Commission, therefore, the matter ends and no penalty is imposable on the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vadodara - 2018 (361) ELT 896 (Tri. Ahmd) (iv) Mamta Garg vs. CCE Noida - 2018 (359) ELT 77 (Tri. Delhi) (v) CC (Imports) Mumbai vs. Patvolk - 2006 (202) ELT 411 (Bom.) (vi) Motilal Gupta vs. CCE Thane - 2016 (337) ELT 462 (Tri. Mumbai) 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. After hearing the parties, it was asked by the ld. AR "please let me know whether the seal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were placed on board and not in the custody of shipping line. Against such facts and circumstances this is not a case of short landing but is more appropriately to be considered a case of short shipment. Based on such facts and considering the decisions of the High Courts cited by the Counsel especially that in Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (supra) the impugned order passed against the appellant is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
