TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO. C/89835/13 -Mum - Final Order No. 1937/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 15-5-2015 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M.K. Mall, Asst. Commr. (A.R.) ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: The appellant is in appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the redemption fine as well as penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act were reduced. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant imported goods declared as M.S. TMPB DEFECTIVE COILS vide Bill of Entry dated 2/9/2013 at JNCH, Nhavasheva Port. The net weight was declared as 108.708 MTs and the declared unit price as USD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 72, which was provided that the goods being second and defectives of steel items will be imported only through Customs Seaport at Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. The appellant realising his mistake admitted the same before the authority and vide letter dated 5/9/13 submitted that there shipping agent due to oversight mentioned the port of destination as Mulund ICD and that it is genuine mistake and prayed for sympathetic consideration. He further submitted that they do not want a show-cause notice. Vide Order-in-Original dated 20/9/13, it was held that the importer had accepted the mistake committed by them and also the importer have not produced any valid import licence and hence the impugned goods were held liable for confiscation under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , relying on the ruling in the case of Broadway Overseas Ltd. - 2014 (310) ELT 597, wherein a co-ordinate Bench in similar case of import of secondary/defective goods which was imported at ICD, Ludhiana free of duty under the notification No. 52/2003-Cus being 100% EOU, in contravention of licensing note No. 4 of chapter 72 of ITC (HS), it was held that port restriction is provided as expertise for examination of such goods is available only at the designated ports. In this view of the matter, confiscation was held to be correct however the redemption fine and penalty was reduced. The learned Counsel further relies on the ruling in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Tushar Impex - 2013 (295) ELT 610 wherein under the facts that the Por ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
