TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s-declaration or not - No doubt in terms of Section 112 rendering the goods liable to confiscation is sufficient - Nevertheless, the importer claimed that it was a mistake and it happened because of the supplier and another customer which has not been gone into and considered at all - Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). Once the goods are liable for confiscation, the redemption fine could be upto the market value - Even though learned counsel submits that profit margin should be taken into account, statutorily the same is not required - In the absence of verification and having considered the fact that goods were lying more than 2 months from the date of import and tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the goods but allowed the importer to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/-. On appeal filed by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2,50,000/- and penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 2. Learned counsel submits that there was no intention of mis-declaration of value or mis-description of the goods. The mistake happened when the supplier while supplying the goods supplied a portion of the goods which were meant for another customer. After excess quantity was found, the supplier issued a letter stating this fact and also on the basis of suppliers request, the appellant agreed to clear the entire quantity supplied by the supplier. He submits that the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate mis-declaration. There is no challenge or verification of the claim made by appellant that mistake happened at the end of the suppler. No verification was made with another customer to whom the goods were meant and as to whether there was deliberate mis-declaration or not. No doubt, as submitted by learned AR, in terms of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, rendering the goods liable to confiscation is sufficient. In this case, the goods are liable for confiscation. Nevertheless, the importer claimed that it was a mistake and it happened because of the supplier and another customer which has not been gone into and considered at all. Having accepted the submission at face value, I consider that the penalty in this case is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
