TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs from a supplier based in London and had cleared the same under Bill of Entry No. 199442, dated 24-2-2000. The appellants had described the consignment as 230 pieces of capacitors and classified them under CTH 8532.29. A total duty of Rs. 6,11,577/- was assessed on the consignment, which the importers had paid on 2-3-2000. Following intelligence received detailed examination of the goods was conducted. Investigation revealed that the impugned goods were more appropriately classifiable under CTH 8532.10 as power capacitors assessable to a higher aggregate amount of duty. Investigation had also revealed that the assessee had cleared another consignment of power capacitors earlier under Bill of Entry No. 192047, dated 22-1-2000. On re-clas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d furnished the classification and rate of duty on the impugned goods without receiving instructions from the importer. The documents had been received by the Manager of the CHA and the Bill of Entry had been filled up by a clerk of the CHA. They submitted that unduly harsh penalty had been imposed on the appellants; a high amount of redemption fine of Rs. 3.5 lakhs had been imposed arbitrarily without ascertaining the profit margin of the impugned goods. The appellants cited several case laws in support of their plea that the redemption fine had to be fixed judicially after necessary market enquiry and exercising due discretion. It was also submitted that the adjudicating authority had overlooked the facts that the omission had occurred ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts such as invoices and Bill of Lading. He reiterated the arguments in the appeal that the error in entering wrong classification had inadvertently occurred owing to the ignorance of a clerical staff of the CHA firm. It was on record that the CHA had not received the instructions to make the entries they had made in respect of the impugned goods, which were proved to be incorrect. 5. The ld. Counsel further submitted a long list of parts and sub-assemblies under different names and their respective item code which they had imported in the past to show that most of the items could not be easily identified with the related tariff entries. He had also produced the purchase order relevant to the impugned import, which had described the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods under a particular tariff heading or claiming exemption under a particular notification was a matter of belief not amounting to misdeclaration in terms of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. 6. Ld. SDR reiterated the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner in the impugned order and submitted that the order deserved to be sustained. She also cited the following case laws in support of the order : 1. DCL Polyesters Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1037 (Tri.-Mum.) 2. H.B. Fibres Ltd. v. CC, Amritsar - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 335 (Tri.-Del.) In the first decision cited, the Tribunal had held that the aspect of bona fide conduct was only one of the factors that governed the quantum of redemption fine and bona fide conduct did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
