9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demption fine and penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 [The Act]. 2. On the basis of intelligence gathered by SIIB officer of ICD(Import) TKD, New Delhi that the goods imported by M/s SB International under the Bill of Entry [BE] No. 4877899 dated 12.04.2016 and 4877899 dated 12.04.2016 were mis-declared. Container No. 2153470 and 2158234 were examined and the goods were found to be "zinc ingots" bearing the mark "calcimin zinc" contrary to the declaration that the goods were "lead ingots". The goods imported under the two BEs were seized under section 110 of the Act due to mis-declaration as "zinc ingots" instead of "lead ingots". During the course of the investigation, statement of Shri Premji Bhanusali, Proprietor of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 3.05.2016 received from the foreign supplier admitting that mis-declaration was on their part, submitted that there was no mistake on the part of the appellant and therefore confiscation of the goods and imposition of such heavy redemption fine is patently wrong and unsustainable. She also challenged the imposition of penalty under section 112 as mis-declaration of goods was neither intentional nor was on account of the appellant who has filed the BE on the basis of import documents provided by the foreign supplier. She also referred that the goods were found to have pasted slips, showing "zinc", which clearly implied that the appellant had no intention to mis-declare the description of the goods. 6. The learned authorized representativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice of "lead ingots" due to mistake of their trainee staff. Further, in support of his statement, he produced the written contracts of the previous consignments imported by him. Thus, what we find is, that the „admission‟ by the proprietor as interpreted by the revenue is not correct. The proprietor of the appellant had pleaded that it was a case of a bonafide mistake on the part of the foreign supplier and there was no evasion of duty. In view thereof he requested for release of the goods on payment of fine and penalty so as to avoid the further liability of heavy demurrage charges. The admission is not of any guilt on the part of the importer. It is not a case of malafide intention to evade duty or import goods which are proh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, neither confiscation nor imposition of redemption fine and penalty is justifiable and therefore the same needs to be set aside. 9. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision in Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), New Delhi [2009(239) ELT 266 (Tri. Del)] where the Tribunal held that in case of bonafide mistake by foreign supplier, neither confiscation can be directed nor penalty can be imposed. Similarly, in the case of Sorento Granito Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam [2009(245) ELT 657(Tri. Bang)] where also the overseas supplier had inadvertently shipped the consignment of single feeder along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
