TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. C/51092/2015 - Final Order No. 5/2016 - Dated:- 18-1-2016 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) For the Petitioner : Shri Pawan Kumar, Adv For the Respondent : Shri R K Mishra, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The Appellant is in appeal against confirmation of redemption fine of ₹ 8 lakh and penalty of ₹ 10 lakh under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that DRI received an intelligence that the appellant was importing Tungsten Carbide Rods and Bits concealed in the consignments of High Speed/Alloys Steel Melting Scrap imported by them from USA and UAE which were not declared in their import documents, deliberately with an intent to evade customs duty. On the basis of intelli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. In the appeal, the appellant challenged imposition of redemption fine and penalty but the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to ₹ 8 lakh and penalty to ₹ 10 lakh respectively. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case the goods were seized by DRI on 02.09.2010 and 18.10.2010 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 20.07.2012 which is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the extended period of limitation was not invokable. He further submitted that as per section 110 of the Act, the seized goods were required to be returned to the appellant after expiry of six months ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontainers including the goods/packages in respect of which no discrepancy was found and assessed the goods by enhancing the value as remaining 27 drums were found to be declared as they cannot be confiscated. In the circumstances, the duty liability of the appellant will come down and redemption fine and penalty are to be imposed accordingly. He submitted that the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. In this case, the admitted facts are that the appellant concealed the fact from the department that the goods were imported alloys steel melting scrap of mixed,grade whereas on examination out of 30 drums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
