9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has dealt with the situation of furnishing the correct particulars in the entry made in the B/E. In the present case, since the appellants had incorrectly mentioned the tariff classification and also claimed the FTA benefit provided under notification dated 01.06.2011, which otherwise was not available to the goods under CTI 7407 10 30, the imported goods, are liable for confiscation and accordingly, the appellants are also exposed to the penal consequences provided under the statute i.e., for payment of redemption fine and penalty. The Orders passed by the Co - ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, as relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellants in SATRON VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) [2018 (11) TMI 1700 - CESTAT MUMBAI] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification of the goods made by the department is proper and justified. The reclassification and denial of FTA benefits were upheld. Confiscation and penalties were justified but reduced in quantum to reflect the appellants' circumstances.
Appeal allowed in part. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the goods covered under B/E dated 26.06.2013 under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, providing the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 125 ibid. The original order had also imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Section 112(a) ibid on the appellants. Appeal filed against the adjudication order dated 26.08.2013 was upheld and the appeal filed by the appellants was rejected by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II vide the impugned order dated 16.06.2014. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no mis-declaration of the descripti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to avail the FTA benefits provided under the Notification No.46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011, which was otherwise not available to them inasmuch as the imported article contained '99.99% of copper' is classifiable under CTI 7407 10 30. Further, it was also stated that the appellants did not contest the classification adopted by the department and have also deposited the differential duty along with interest attributable to the imported goods. Therefore, it was contended that the provisions of Section 111(m) ibid are attracted in the circumstances of the present case and the appellants are exposed to the penal consequences provided under Section 125 ibid and Section 112(a) ibid. 4. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 5. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .06.2011 (supra), which otherwise was not available to the goods under CTI 7407 10 30, the imported goods, in our considered view, are liable for confiscation and accordingly, the appellants are also exposed to the penal consequences provided under the statute i.e., for payment of redemption fine and penalty. The Orders (supra) passed by the Co - ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, as relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellants, are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, inasmuch as change in classification of goods by the department and acceptance of the said changed classification by the importer was not the subject matter of dispute before the Co-ordinate Benches. Further, in the case in hand, the appellants have not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
