9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the case are that appellant filed two Bills of Entry for clearance of goods declared as LDPE. On examination, the goods were found to be Polypropylene (PP) granules. Immediately thereafter appellant took up the matter with the supplier , Basell International Trading FZE, Dubai which accepted the mistake of sending wrong goods and agreed to take them back bearing all the costs incurred in that regard. The primary adjudicating authority having regard to the submission of the appellant confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the goods for re-export on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penalty as above. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the primary adjudicating authority. 3. In its appeal before CESTAT, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), Mumbai 2015 (318) ELT 305 (Tri-Mumbai) to support its proposition that redemption fine and penalty can be imposed in these circumstances.. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides and perused the relevant records. It is evident that the orders for 49.5 MT + 49.5 MT of LDPE were placed on 20.7.2009 and part payment was also made in advance. There is evidence of confirmation of receipt of those orders by the supplier on 20.7.2009 itself. The supplier in this case is a well established multi-national on M/s Basell International Trading FZE. It is also seen that the documents relating to the import goods were released by the bank after receiving the balance amount from the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that when the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alone established, by him. Indeed, the facts and circumstances of the case clearly point towards the absence of any mala fide on the part of the appellants We find that that CESTAT in similar circumstances has held repeatedly that for allowing re-export, RF and penalties are not warranted as is evident from the following judgments: (a) Simens Public Communication Networks Ltd. v. C.C. (Airport) Calcutta 2001 (137) ELT 623 (Tri-Kolkata) (b) Guru Ispat Ltd. vs. C.C (Port), Calcutta 2003 (151) ELT 384 (Tri-Kolkata). HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. v. C.C., New Delhi - 2003 (158) ELT 349 (Tri-Del.) Our attention was also drawn to the Circular of the Board No.100/2003 dated 28.11.2003 wherein the CBEC has observed that in case of wrong s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
