9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the importer, inter alia, alleging wrong classification and failure to affix stickers declaring RSP on the individual packets of imported goods. Penalty was also proposed on the appellant under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 for allegations of contraventions and misdemeanors. According to this, CHA filed bills of entry containing details of RSP although goods did not bear stickers/labels bearing such details. 2. Ld. Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand by holding that goods were correctly classified under CTH 1704 (as against 2106 proposed in the SCN). He also dropped penal proceedings against the appellant on the ground that the appellant had no means to verify whether the individual packages inside the containers had the requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has set aside penalty imposed on Custom House Agent on the ground that the said CHA has acted on the basis of the documents given to them and there is nothing to show that he was aware of the containers being stuffed with alleged mis-declaration. He therefore prayed for acceptance of the appeal. 4. The learned A.R on the other hand reiterates the findings specially Para 10.4 to 10.6 reproduced below of the impugned order and states further that in case law cited by the appellant reported in 2020 (371) ELT 309 (Tri-Ahm.) (supra) issue of non-fixing of M.R.P was not decided specifically. Para "10.4 I do not agree with the contention of the adjudicating authority that there was no mala fide intention of the importer for not fixing such labe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nowing what kind of goods were contained in the container and whether they had affixed any MRP or not. In support, he seeks to rely upon the decision in the matter of PRIME FORWARDERS vs. CCE-Kandla as reported in 2008 (222) ELT 137 (Tri-Ahm.) as is the part of the synopsis submitted. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. It finds that the case against the main party on the issue of Notification was decided in 2020 (371) ELT 309 (Tri.-Ahm.). However, the contents of the decision in the matter of M/s. Magnum Chocolatier Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad as reported in 2020 (371) ELT 309 (Tri. - Ahmd.) do not indicate whether the issue of labelling of consignment was before the Division Bench of this Tribunal or was given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
