9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the time of packing the goods at their end. This cogent explanation has not been found to be untrue. It is further noted that the Appellant had already been suffered financial loss at the end paid for the consignment to the Shipper. The penalty imposed under Section 112a of the Act is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Accordingly, in the circumstances, the Appellant admitted the mistake due to inadvertence of the part of the Shipper and requested for lenient view and also waived his right to show cause notice. 3. As Nokia Mobile registered with the Custom department with respect to IPR that department informed them, and after examination the representative of Nokia stated that the Nokia brand goods imported by Appellant valued at ₹ 37,500/- are counterfeit and also furnished bound and banned guarantee. 4. It appeared to Revenue that it is a case of mismatch both as regards the description and quantity, and thus the value declared by the importer in the Bill of Entry of ₹ 3.5 lakhs cannot be accepted and accordingly the case goods are req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice detecting the transaction value and re-valuing the goods at ₹ 7,38,970/. It was further ordered confiscation of the goods valued at ₹ 7,10,470/- (other than Nokia charges) liable to confiscation under Section 111d (i) and (m) of the Act. Further taking into notice that the goods have been abandoned the same was accepted and no redemption was given under Section 125 of the Act. Further, absolute confiscation of Nokia brand mobile charges valued at ₹ 37,500/- was ordered under Section 111d of the Act. Further, penalty of ₹ 4 lakhs was imposed under Section 112a of the Customs Act. 8. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is in the Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the ground that under the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 112a of the Act. 11. Learned Authorised Representative relies on the impugned order. 12. Having considered rival contentions, I find that there is no case of deliberate mis-declaration made out on the part of the Appellant importer. The Bill of Entry had been filed as per the packing list and Bill of Lading. Further, the Shipper/Exporter have accepted their mistake, there being error at the time of packing the goods at their end. This cogent explanation has not been found to be untrue. I, further take note that the Appellant had already been suffered financial loss at the end paid for the consignment to the Shipper. 13. In view of my findings, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112a of the Act. The Appeal is allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
