TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, but allowing release on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lacs, and imposing penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 2. The subject goods are Polyester Woven Fabric and the appellant imported them under five consignments declaring them as non-texturised. The case of the appellant is that the description of goods was as per the invoice of the overseas supplier, certificate of origin as well as test report made available by the overseas supplier wherein goods had been described as fabric (non-texturised). The appellant accordingly filed Bill of Entry declaring the goods as fabric (non-texturised). 3. It may be mentioned that on receipt of the goods, sample was taken and sent to the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the appellant was having to pay 34 US $ per container per day and also Rs. 200/- as ground rent per day, and considering that five months had already lapsed and the conclusion of the adjudication process was nowhere in sight, the appellant was left with no option but to agree to clear the consignment under the proposed classification subject, of course, to the final outcome of the dispute. It was submitted that in identical situation, the Tribunal in Shree Ganesh International v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, 2004 (174) E.L.T. 171 (T-Del.), has held that where the declaration in the Bill of Entry is made on the basis of documents received by the importer from foreign supplier, the description even if found to be wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as non-texturized fabric rather than texturized fabric. On this point, we are inclined to accept the case of the appellant that the declaration had been made on the basis of documents supplied by the foreign supplier and there was no intentional or deliberate wrong declaration or misdeclaration on its part so as to attract the mischief of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The facts of the case in the instant case are somewhat similar to those of Shree Ganesh International (supra) and therefore, we do not think that benefit of the ratio of the decision should be denied to the appellant. The finding of the learned Commissioner that the appellant had agreed that the imported fabric was texturized cannot be approved as if the result of mis-rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
