9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the statutory provisions have been designed in the way that there is no escape route to avoid confiscation of goods, which do not correspond in respect of the value declared in the Bill of Entry. When the goods are liable for confiscation, imposition of redemption fine and penalty u/s 125 ibid and Section 112(a) ibid respectively are automatic and thus, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the lower authorities in ordering for confirmation of the redemption fine and penalties on the appellant. The Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pine Chemical Suppliers [ 1992 (9) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT] , by upholding the order passed by the Tribunal, has held that mis-declaration of the goods imported by the appellants rendered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 10.12.2013 had adjudicated the matter, holding that CVD amount shall be charged on the MRP pasted on the package of goods i.e. Rs.185/- per Pcs; confiscated the imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with the option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 125 ibid and also imposed penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) ibid. Appeal filed by the appellant against the adjudication order dated 10.12.2013 was disposed off by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai vide Order-in-Appeal No. 2374(Gr.VII H) 2014(JNCH)/EXP-97 dated 10.06.2014 (for short, referred to as the impugned order ) in upholding the adjudged demands confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Customs - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 25 (S.C.). 4. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 5. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant had declared the RSP in the B/E at Rs.170/- for the imported goods and on pointing out such defect by the Department that the RSP should have been Rs.185/- , they had paid the differential amount of CVD along with interest and fine and penalty on 03.12.2013 and thereafter, the subject goods were cleared for home consumption. The appellant, in this case had paid for the entire liability towards duty interest and penalties suo motto, which is evident from the records that such payments were not made under protest. Though, the appellant s submission is convincing that there was unintention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
