9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside. The amount of redemption fine imposed by the impugned order as well as the penalties imposed upon the Appellants need to be proportionately reduced. Appeal of Shri Dilip Sarkar is partly upheld by upholding the confiscation of the excess quantity of goods found in the consignment over and above what was declared and duty on such quantity of pieces, remaining part of the demand and the confiscation of the remaining goods is set aside. Consequently the redemption fine as well as penalty upon the said Appellant needs to be reduced in proportion to the value of the excess goods to the total value of goods. Imposition of penalty on the Authorized Representative of the Customs Broker - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence on record that the Customs Broker was aware of the alleged irregularity. As there is no material available on record against him, the imposition of penalty on Shri Biswajit Mirdha is not justified and accordingly the same is set aside. Vehicle being confiscated and penalty imposed upon the owner Shri Uttam Biswas - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the seized vehicle had been utilized for the purpose of importation of the mis-declared goods an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 2,366(excess) US$ 1.5/Pc. 6,75,949/- 2. After following due process, the Ld.Adjudicating authority by the impugned order, has held the entire goods imported by the aforesaid consignment liable for confiscation and confiscated the same under Section 111 (e) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also gave the Appellants an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He demanded Customs duty on the entire quantity of goods which were imported. Further he has imposed penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the importer Shri Dilip Sarkar, Proprietor of M/s.Shree Ashutosh Exports. He also imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- on the Authorized Agent of the Customs Broker Shri Biswajit Mirdha under Section 117 of the Customs Act and confiscated the carrier vehicle owned by Shri Uttam Biswas and gave the option to redeem the vehicle on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 4.00 Lakhs and further imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- under Section 112(b) on the truck owner. All the three persons are in Appeal before the Tribunal. Customs Appeal No.77180 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of loading of the excess quantity of goods for the subject consignment, but the Customs Broker did not inform the same to the Customs authority at any point of time. Moreover, the Ld.Adjudicating authority observed in the Order-in- Original that from the statement of the Customs Broker, it is apparent that he failed to perfom his duty properly as envisaged in Regulation 11 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 and is thus liable for penal action under Section 117 of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty of ₹ 1.00 Lakh. It is the case of the Appellant that the importer had informed only upon clearance of the goods and there was no occasion that he could intimate regarding the excess quantity of the goods loaded in the vehicle. From the statement reproduced in the Order-in-Original, it is apparent that the Customs Broker had filed Bill of Entry as per the documents and instructions given by the importer and the importer had also admitted to have communicated to the Customs Broker after out of charge is given. Customs Appeal No.77178 of 2019 Shri Uttam Biswas 6. The Ld.Advocate in regard to confiscation of the seized vehicle and imposition of penalty up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods only which have been concealed and have not been declared and not the entire quantity of goods. In fact the Section 111(l) is very categorical that it applies to goods found in excess of what has been declared. Therefore, I find that the excess goods are liable for confiscation and not the entire consignment imported by the Appellant. I find that the confiscation of the remaining goods is not as per the law and accordingly needs to be set aside and I do so. 12. I also find that the denial of the exemption certificate for the entire quantity of goods when the bulk of the goods are already covered by the SAFTA Certificate is not supported by any legal provision. Therefore the demands need to be set aside to that extent and I do so. The amount of redemption fine imposed by the impugned order as well as the penalties imposed upon the Appellants need to be proportionately reduced. 13. In view of the above I partly allow the Appeal of Shri Dilip Sarkar upholding the confiscation of the excess quantity of goods found in the consignment over and above what was declared and duty on such quantity of pieces, remaining part of the demand and the confiscation of the remaining goods is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
