9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order and the same is upheld - appeal dismissed. - HON BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV TANDON , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Tariq Suleman , Authorized Representative for the Revenue NONE for the Respondent ORDER Per : ASHOK JINDAL : The revenue is in appeal against the impugned order challenging the non-imposition of penalty under section 114A and not demanding interest from the respondent. 2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of information received by DRI which suggested that various types of high value worn clothing like zipper jackets, shirts, track suits, jeans etc. have been cleared through Custom House, Kolkata at their lowest value, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.4 I confirm duty of Rs.1,00,254/- (Rupees one lakh two hundred fifty four only) with charging of duty (BCD) at the rate as specified in respect of goods classifiable under CTH 63090000 out of which Rs.1,00,160/- has already been paid by the importer. 24.5 I order confiscation of the goods covered under bill of entry no 420536 dated 16/07/2008 of M/s. A.S. Traders, Mumbai having redetermined assessable values of Rs.6,81,444.58 (Rupees six lakh eighty one thousand, four hundred forty four and Paisa fifty eight only), A/V under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the importer having failed to produce a valid import licence in respect of the goods which have been determined to be restricted for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced before us and the impugned order. 5. We find that the adjudicating authority has held that the goods are liable for confiscation and imposed redemption fine and penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, the adjudicating authority has relied on the judicial pronouncement of this Tribunal in the case of S.S.Impex vide Final Order NO.FO/A/75563/2014 dated 19.09.2014 where redemption fine was imposed @ 19.5% and penalty @ 7.8% on the value re-fixed. In that circumstances, as the adjudicating authority has followed the judicial pronouncement on the issue, in that circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. In the result , the appeal is dismissed. ( Operative part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
