9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on payment of fine of Rs.4.50 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the exporter. 2. Aggrieved by this order, appellants have come in appeal on the ground that this is a clerical mistake as they have mentioned per piece instead of per pack in the shipping bill. 3. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate invited our attention to Paras 2 and 16 of the impugned order in which the ld. Commissioner has held that there was a human error and such human error could not per se be faulted, at least when no collusion is established. He also held that no doubt there was a clerical mistake and lack of thorough scrutiny on the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and no redemption fine could also be imposable under Section 125 of the Customs Act. He also relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of DCW Ltd. v. ACCE, Tuticorin - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 31 wherein it has been held that no penalty is imposable when bona fides of the assessee is established. He therefore submitted that since they have paid the drawback amount the moment the clerical mistake was pointed out to them, the order of confiscation and imposing redemption fine and penalty may be set aside, with consequential relief, if any. 4. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue, DR Shri A. Jayachandran submits that there is a misdeclaration on their part in the shipping bill and they have claimed the drawback amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) has held that redemption fine is imposable only in cases when the seized goods were released on execution of bond and not when goods have already been exported out of the country. He also submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Weston Components Ltd. was distinguished in the case of Ram Khazana Electronic v. CC, Jaipur. In this connection, ld. Advocate invited our attention to Para 10 of the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Khazana Electronic, since the seized goods were released on an application filed by the appellant and they had also executed a bond for producing the goods to the adjudicating authority. Whereas in the present case the goods have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
