TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- No evidence of wilful attempt by the assessee to contravene the rules is found, therefore there is no reason to impose any penalty. Hence, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) of setting aside the penalty is upheld. Further, Respondent is not making a clear submission as to why he wants the goods to be re-exported. He has not made any payment towards the goods. Thus, permission for re-export of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase the parcel is not accompanied by such certificate, the consignee is allowed to produce the certificate within seven working days of arrival of the goods. The consignee submitted to the Custom authority that they were not able to produce the certificate required and therefore the goods may be sent back to the consignor. The guidelines issued by CBEC vide Circular No. 53/2003-Cus. dated 23.6.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tificate, the Respondents on their own informed the Custom authorities about the fact. Further, they did not file any Bill of Entry or make any mis-declaration and there was no attempt on their part to smuggle the goods. Therefore the penalty imposed on the appellant is not warranted at all. The Respondents filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed re-export of the goods, set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that there is no evidence of wilful attempt by the Respondents to contravene the rules and therefore there is no reason to impose any penalty on the Respondent and therefore I uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. As regards confiscation of the goods in the first place the Respondent is not making a clear submission as to why he wants the goods to be re-exported. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
