9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appeal we find that the issue involves a non-deliberate contravention of law, due to the exigencies of the business process. No loss of revenue or deliberate intention to evade payment of duty is made out. It is true that any breach of a civil obligation under the Act is a blameworthy conduct by the appellant and can be visited with a penalty as provided for in the Act and Rules. However a distinction has to be drawn between a bona fide-mistake and dishonest non-compliance while imposing a fine and penalty. The goods are not prohibited for import. In M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The State of Orissa [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] held that Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight declared was 47.50 kgs. Further, the consignee has also claimed nil duty under Customs Notification No. 012/2012 Sl. No. 232 for the item declared as Button and Size Label . As there was a variation between the declaration and the examination, the consignment was detained and a query was raised to the consignee on 12.6.2014 to explain for the variation in the description and quantity. The appellant filed a revised invoice covering the goods and since there was a mis-match between the original invoice and the revised invoice, department issued a Show Cause Notice. After due process of law, the Ld. Original Authority rejected the declared value and redetermined the value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arcel delivery was delayed. The overseas customer insisted upon DHL to immediately clear the goods so that the export orders are executed. DHL for reasons best known filed BE No. 23597 dated 12.08.2014 in the appellant s name by working out the value on a pro-rata basis without any instruction from the appellant and declared the same in the subject BE while claiming the benefit of customs notification no. 12/2012 [serial no. 232]. The Customs Officer examining the two parcels found difference in the quantity declared in the BE and the value which was due to the courier wrongly informing the contents of the two parcels and on account of the missing third parcel. On a query from the Customs Authorities, the appellant obtained and produced the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct goods are for use in the goods to be exported to the very same supplier and are unconditionally exempted from the payment of the customs duties in terms of serial no. 232 of notification no. 12/2012 Customs 17.03.2012. Facts on record show that identical goods were later imported at NIL duty and there is absolutely no justification to hold the appellant guilty of any suppression or malafide intent to warrant the confiscation or imposition of the penalty on them. The error if any was caused due to the urgency in making the shipment on time. The Ld. Counsel stated that when the value of the goods was enhanced involving no possibility of any commercial benefits accruing to them and when the import itself was for use in the export of goods f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
