Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1809 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of imported goods - imposition of redemption fine and penalty - clearance of 50,000 pieces of Printed Circuit Boards usable in electric panels with 8 GB RAM - goods were found to be old and used 256 MB DDR RAM of various brands - restricted goods or not - HELD THAT:- In this case, admittedly the goods were found to be old and used DDR RAMs, as against the declaration made in the Bill of Entry as PCBs and that such goods were prohibited for import in terms of the FTP and the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary) Rules, 2008. Thus, the goods actually found during the course of examination were liable for confiscation inasmuch as the provisions of clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 are attracted. However, on perusal of the statement recorded by the department from the Authorized Representative of the high seas seller, it is found that the said person had specifically stated that the goods were supplied other than the goods which were ordered for and that due to inadvertence, the overseas supplier had supplied the said goods to the Indian buyer, instead of the buyer located in Jordan, who placed the purchase order for buying the said goods. The department has not brought on any evidence to prove that the appellant had prior knowledge of such misdeclared goods. Thus, under the circumstances of the case, the redemption fine imposed on the appellant is in the higher side, which can be reduced in the interest of justice. Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- Due to wrong notion, the overseas supplier had supplied the old and used DDR RAMs to the high seas seller in India, which were meant for supply to a buyer in a different country. Further, on perusal of the statement recorded from the Authorized Representative of the high seas seller, it transpires that the overseas supplier had rectified its mistake by supplying the actual goods, which were ordered for by the Indian buyer. Thus, under such circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the appellant is exposed to the penal consequences provided under Section 112(a) ibid. The impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the quantum of redemption fine from ₹ 35,00,000/- to ₹ 5,00,000/- - So far as imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) ibid is concerned, the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed in part.
|