TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent/importer was a “Zoo” and the certificate issued by the Deputy Director Wild Life (Protection) was valid. Once again the Department addressed the Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority on 24-8-1998 to re-examine and clarify whether the importers have been accorded recognition as “zoo” in terms of provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 1992. It is only thereafter, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, during October, 1998, informed the appellant - Department that after examining the matter in detail, it was decided that the importer was not officially accorded “Zoo Operation Status” and directed that the .import may be treated as “Other Live Animals”. In order to attract penalty equal to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of such an act, shall be liable to pay penalty not exceeding the duty sought, to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. Thus, considering the facts, the Managing Director is liable to pay penalty, which is fixed at ₹ 5,000 - Decded in favour of Revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 49-50 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2014 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Shri K. Ravindranath, for the Appellant. Shri Alwan for S. Murugappan, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14-6-2007 made in Final Order No. 733 of 2007 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under CTH 9908.00 for the purpose of duty-free clearance. The imports were from Bulgaria and the sea mammals were used for performance shows by the importers in their amusement park. The Department issued a show cause notice to the respondent dated 16-11-1998 calling upon them to show cause as to why the classification for Sea Lions and Dolphins under CTH 9908.00 should not be denied and instead they be classified under CTH 0106.00; why the duty leviable, under CTH 01.06.00 at 65% for the Sea Lions and at 40% + 5% for the Dolphins be not imposed and why the same should be demanded with interest at 24% per annum under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act; why the Sea Lions should not be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and (o) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases where the duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or the interest has not been charged or paid or has been part paid or the duty or interest has been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, the person, who is liable to pay the duty or interest, shall also be liable to pay penalty equal to the duty or interest so determined. In order to impose penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, there should be a clear finding that the importer has made a wilful statement or suppressed the fact, so as to attract levy of penalty. 8. In the instant case, we notice that the importer had produced a letter dated 23-1-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Original Authority and reduced the penalty to ₹ 10.00 lakhs. 10. As pointed out earlier, in order to attract penalty equal to the duty determined, there should be a clear finding that the importer had colluded or made a wilful mis-statement or suppressed the facts. Thus, in the absence of any such specific finding rendered by the Original Authority nor any such proposal in the show cause notice, we are inclined to confirm the order passed by the Tribunal reducing the penalty of ₹ 10.00 lakhs. 11. In so far as the penalty imposed on the Managing Director under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal set aside the penalty on the ground that the order does not specify any omission or commission on par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
