2016 (2) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent : Mr Piyush Kumar, Adv ORDER Per Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent imported ammunition from M/s. Winchester Australia Ltd., Australia and filed Bills of Entry for clearance of the same. The description of goods is as under:- Bill of Entry No. dated Invoice No. & Date Declared Discription Qnty. No .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not .30 Mauser partridges, therefore the same do not fall under Para 2.34 of the Hand Book of Procedures, 2009-14 and the respondent is not having the licence to import thereof. In these set of facts, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent and the imported cartridges were held liable for confiscation and accordingly absolutely confiscated and a penalty of Rs. 1.25 lakhs was also imp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... verted into 7.62 in Metric system and therefore the impugned cartridges 7.25 X 25mm, which is equivalent to 0.30mm cartridges. To support this contention, he also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Capital Gun House Vs. CC (Imports), Mumbai [2008 (223) ELY 492 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and submits that the appeal of the Revenue be dismissed. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d fire the imported Tokarev cartridges. The only objection is that the Tokarev cartridges are powerful than Mauser cartridge. Hence, they are not one and the same. It is emphasized that the Assistant Commissioner does not dispute that the imported Tokarev cartridge can be used, chambered and fired from .30 Mauser pistol. The objection that Tokarev cartridges are more powerful than Mauser is irrele .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d name of the goods and as long as the specifications of the goods are in consonance with the Policy, the charge of misdeclaration cannot be upheld. For the similar reason, no penalty can be justifiably be imposed upon the appellant. 7. In view of the above observations, we hold that the respondent has not mis-declared the goods and the import made by it was quantified under Para 2.34 of Handbook .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X