9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bill of Entry No.749676 dt. 14.1.2011 declaring the goods as Chlortetracycline 15% (Medicaments) - Animal Feed Supplements" classifying under Chapter Heading 30042041 and claiming the benefit of CVD under Exemption Notification No.3/2005-c.Ex (Sl.No.29) dt. 24.2.2005. Based on the intelligence received from DRI that importer misdeclared the description of the goods and clearing the goods as "medicaments" in stead of "animal feed supplements" and evading appropriate customs duty, the goods were seized and released provisionally on execution of PD bond and bank guarantee for 20% of the value of the goods. The intelligence also found that respondents have cleared 10 consignments of identical goods in the past and declared as "Medicaments". Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue's appeal. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. A.R for Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal and submits that the imported item is Chlortetracycline 15% and claimed classification as "medicaments". He submits that when the respondent failed to appear for personal hearing before the adjudicating authority and failed to put forth their grounds against confiscation and penalty. The original authority has rightly confiscated the goods and imposed RF and penalty besides re-classifying the goods. He submits that Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld re-classification and misdeclaration but setting aside the confiscation, fine and penalty is not justified. Respondents have intentionally misdeclared the goods as "Medicaments" under Chapter 30 and avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50 lakhs covering the past consignments valued at Rs. 2,09,17,181/-, by taking 25% of the value of all Bills of Entries and also pleaded that penalty imposed is on the higher side. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside fine and penalty. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that the short issue to be decided in this Revenues appeal is limited to confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Reading the respondents raising the dispute of classification of goods in their cross objection, we find that respondents themselves in their appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) have accepted the reclassification of the goods ordered with OIO and also paid the differential duty whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms. It is evident that respondents claimed classification of goods as "medicament" under Chapter 30 with intention to avail exemption of CVD at NIL rate under Central Excise notification No.3/2005-C.Ex Sl.No.29). Therefore, intention of the respondent is established the contravention under Section 111 for confiscation is fully justified. The lower appellate authority having accepted the Revenue's re-classification of the goods under chapter 23 as "animal feed supplement" and upheld the demand, the reasons for dropping confiscation fine and penalty is not justified and not backed with evidence and beyond the scope of law. Accordingly, We hold that the misdeclaration is clearly established with intent to evade customs duty, therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
