9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to what exactly the said container was stuffed with. The demand of duty is wholly based on assumption and presumptions of the goods said to be in the said container. However, it is found that under the Customs Act r/w the HCCAR2009, the appellant was obligated to keep the container in safe custody and to offer the container in sealed condition for inspection etc., which they have failed. It is found that there is contributory negligence on the part of the customs department also, as they have failed to take timely action for disposal of the goods in spite of receiving intimation of the appellant as early as on 03.11.2010 - the demand of duty is set aside penalty is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. Appeal allowed in part. - Customs Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the importer and directed to appear. Thereafter, Mr. Vasudev Sachdeva for Sayesha Exporter appeared before the customs on 28.05.2015 and inter alia stated that he was engaged in import export business for the last 15 years. He further stated that although his daughter Shilpa Gambhir is the proprietor of Sayesha Exporter, but he herself looked after all the work. They usually import lip care, faced creame, shoes, wire etc. However, after the year 2010, he has not made any import in the said firm. Further stated that they have not placed any import order and the said goods contained in container No. APHU7035978 have not been imported by them, and they have no knowledge about the same. 4. The Customs Department had also initiated overseas e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable as the goods have not been inspected by any customs authority in India or China at any stage. The demand of duty is based on assumption and presumptions, without any certainty about the goods contained in the said container. Admittedly, the said container was never inspected by the Indian Customs at any stage. Further, admittedly no Bill of entry was filed by any person and thus there was no declared value of the goods. The demand of duty on the basis of some vague information received by the Customs department through the Consulate General of India in Hong Kong, cannot be relied upon for demand of duty upon the appellant. There is no case of any negligence on the part of the appellant in the facts of the present case. In spite of tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , I find that under the Customs Act r/w the HCCAR2009, the appellant was obligated to keep the container in safe custody and to offer the container in sealed condition for inspection etc., which they have failed. I further find that there is contributory negligence on the part of the customs department also, as they have failed to take timely action for disposal of the goods in spite of receiving intimation of the appellant as early as on 03.11.2010. In view of my observations and findings I set aside the demand of duty. However, I confirm the amount of penalty and the same is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- Thus, the appeal is allowed in part with consequential benefits to the appellant. ( Order dictated in the open court ) - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
