TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive and not retrospective therefore whatever goods imported prior to issuance of this Circular was held to be legal. Therefore in the present case also the import was made prior to issuance of circular i.e. on 3/8/1999. In the present case imposition of penalty on the partner and in the case of partnership firm, wherein confiscation of goods were ordered, the appeal of the partnership firm was allowed in previous order. Since a main proceeding against partnership firm has been dropped the penalty on partner cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/86908/14-MUM - - - Dated:- 23-12-2014 - Ramesh Nair, J. For the Appellant : Shri D H Nadkarni, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri M K Mall, Asst Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The fact of the case is that the appellant, partnership firm imported 'Garlic' declaring as 'Dried Garlic' under Customs Tariff Heading 071290, import of which was freely permitted. However on investigation and test it was found that it is 'Wet Garlic' and covered under the entry 0703.20, which was restricted item as consumer goods as per ITC (HS) classification of Export and Import and were allowed to be imported under licence issued in view of Para 4.5 of Import and Export Policy 1997-2002. The show cause notice was issued wherein it was proposed to confiscate the goods 224.90 MTs of garlic covered under bill of entry 1067 and 1084 both da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be concluded that the appellant has mis-declared with malafide intention. He placed reliance on the Larger Bench judgment in the case of [2004 (168) E.L.T. 170 (Tri-LB))] DAB Exports Versus Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, which was an identical issued, wherein the Larger Bench held that the DGFT Circular dated 17/9/1999 is not retrospective but it is prospective one. Accordingly, import was held to be legal. He further submits that in this very case proceeding against the partnership firm has been dropped by coordinate bench of this Tribunal Vide Order No. A/1452/14/SMB/C-IV dated 4/9/2014. It is his submission that penalty on the partner i.e. present appellant is consequential to the charges made against partnership firm towards misd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
