TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty is imposable. If the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, the consequence by way of redemption fine and penalty can be imposed and the Authorities have duly considered the improper import and levied reasonable redemption fine and penalty. – Appeal allowed and decided in favour of the Revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 385 of 2009 & M.P. No. 1 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2014 - R. Sudhakar and R. Karuppiah, JJ. Shri Vikram Ramakrishnan, for the Appellant. Shri S. Murugappan, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the order dated 14-8-2008 made in Final Order No. 876 of 2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Act be imposed. 3. The case was adjudicated and a finding was rendered by the Original Authority. The Original Authority came to the conclusion that parts of CFL lights were attempted to be imported by giving misdeclaration to avoid payment of anti-dumping duty. Accordingly the Original Authority held as follows : 10. Accordingly, I find that there has been an evasion of ADD amounting to ₹ 12,10,650/-. 11. I also observe, that due to misdeclaration of description and classification leading to evasion of ADD, the entire consignment of 15,000 Pcs of CFL in SKD form are liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the importer is also liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea, which we extract hereunder as such : On 17-2-2006 Shri S. Murugappan, Ms. Prameela Viswanathan, Advocates, Shri G. Radhakrishnan, Vice President and Shri S. Shankar, General Manager appeared for the personal hearing. They have stated that they are only contesting the fine and penalty imposed in this case. The impugned order mentioned that they had misdeclared and misclassified the goods. They pointed out that the goods were as declared in the invoice and it has not been shown that the goods were not as described. Further as regard the classification of the goods, although they had given a suggested classification heading, the work of classifying and assessing the goods is to be done by the Department and the importer cannot be hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed lightly. Incomplete description and misleading suggestion of classification have to be viewed with seriousness. Once the goods are liable for confiscation the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is leviable and to redeem the goods option under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 on payment of fine has to be given. Considering the amount of duty sought to be evaded by the appellant, the fine and penalty imposed appeared to be reasonable. The case laws cited by the appellant are distinguished by the above-discussed facts and they are not squarely applicable in this case, in which chicanery is involved. In view of the above discussion and facts and legal position stated therein, the lower authority s order is upheld. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore this Court. 9. From a reading of the order of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal proceeds on the presumption that it is not a case of misclassification, whereas, the importer himself had accepted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that they are not pursuing the matter insofar as the finding on misdeclaration and misclassification. Therefore, the Tribunal misdirected itself to hold that there is no case of misclassification of the goods. Furthermore, the question of redemption fine and penalty would arise only after paying the anti-dumping duty as are to be imposed by the Department accepting that the goods were imported as parts. Admittedly the importer had paid anti-dumping duty with redemption fine. The plea apparently is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
