TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T) (for the Bench)] This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner No. 01/COMMR/IND/2006-CUS., dated 23-3-2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Relevant facts, in brief, are as follows : (a) The appellant imported a consignment of polyethylene granules weighing 47.250 MT and declared them as LDPE and produced 3 DEEC licence to cover the said quantity of LDPE and claimed the bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine of Rs. 2,50,000/-; he also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He also held that the exemption was not available and accordingly, demanded duty of Rs. 7,46,619/-. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they have been issued licences for import of both LLDPE and LDPE and both fall under same tariff sub-heading. Both the materials are inter-changeably usable for the intended purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a coded form. They have produced invalid licences and also misdeclared the goods. Therefore, he seeks upholding of the order of the Commissioner. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions. It is true that they have been permitted import of specified quantities of LDPE and LLDPE under various licences issued to them. The granules of LDPE and LLDPE fall under the same Chapter sub-heading. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiates between the LDPE and LLDPE. Under these circumstances, we hold that there is mis-declaration of goods imported and the benefit of exemption is not applicable as held by the Commissioner. Therefore, the goods are liable to confiscation and also they are liable for penalty. However, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that some leniency can be shown in the quantum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
