9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) but the goods were directed to be confiscated for violation of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Foreign Trade Policy para 2.12 and 2.8 of 2009-2014. Further, there is no denial of the fact that in the said Foreign Trade (Exemption from application of Rules in certain cases) order 1993 under Order No. 3(I) any person importing goods through the post/courier or otherwise for his personal use except certain item including consumer electronic items is covered under such exemption when the CIF value of such goods shall not exceed of ₹ 2000/-. Therefore, admittedly this goods is a restricted item but there is no absolute restriction or prohibition available for such import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demption fine of ₹ 2,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on the appellant. The said order of adjudication passed on dated 20.01.2016 by Additional Commissioner of Customs, Gr VI, ACC, Mumbai was challenged before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-III who upheld the order but taking a lenient view reduced redemption fine to ₹ 1,50,000/- and penalty to ₹ 50,000/-. The said order is assailed here by the appellant. 2. I have heard submissions from both the sides, perused the case record, relevant statutory provisions and the decided case laws relied upon by the parties. At the outset it must be placed on record that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, can be permanent IEC numbers i.e. required to be used by non-commercial PSU and other categories of importers and exporters under which IEC No. 0100000053 is mentioned as permanent IEC for use by persons importing or exporting goods for personal use, not connected with trade or manufacturing. Evidence is available on record that the said number is entered in the Bill of Entry filed by the appellant and instead of 10% duty required to be paid for importer of such goods for commercial use, appellant had paid over 35% as duty etc. Furthermore, it can be said that the case law of Sheikh Mohd. Omer Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Others reported in 1971 AR 293 cited by the learned Authorised Representative Shri Manoj Das, Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
