TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)and accordingly, the impugned order is upheld. - Decided against the revenue - Cus. Appeal Nos.60767,60768/13 - Final Order Nos. A/70107-70108/2016-SM, - Dated:- 26-10-2015 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Vikram Kaushik, A.C. (A.R.) For the Respondent : Ms.Surabhi Sinha, Adv. ORDER PER MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY : The revenue is in appeal against order in appeal Nos. 10-11/CUS/ALLD/2013 dated 30.08.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow, against the directors of M/s Naeem Sons Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and tender of the electronic goods imported mobile phones, wherein by the impugned order, the confiscation as well as penalty imposed on the firm and its Directors. 3. The facts in brief are that the preventive officer on 23.07.11 intercepted a vehicle and found that mobile phones of different brands, both Indian and Chinese with accessories valued at about ₹ 5,42,725/- were being transported. On questioning the persons in occupation of the goods vehicle they could not produce valid documents regarding the licit purchase or import of the Chinese and Indian orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the show cause notice and the same was adjudicated vide OIO dated 13.09.2012 and the goods found and detaied valued at ₹ 14,31,830/- from the premises of main shop, M/s Naeem Sons Electronics Private Ltd. were held liable to confiscation and as the same were already released against security during the course of investigation, redemption fine of ₹ 3,57,958/- was imposed, further was no penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/- each under section 112 of the act was imposed on the Directors namely, Shri Naeem Ahmad Shri Arshad. Further penalty of ₹ 5.00 lakhs was imposed under section 112 on the company, M/s Naeem Sons Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and ₹ 2,50,000/- each on Naeem Ahmed and Arshad Naeem, Respondents herein. 5. Being aggrieved the Respondents preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide the impugned order, has held that the appellants have sufficiently explained the source of purchase/acquisition of the goods in question. Further the appellant have also explained the search of source wherein bills of entry was produced by the sellers namely, M/s Parneet Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s R. V. Solutions which were also found to be genuine on ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot relate to the import documents produced in the course of investigation, no new case can be made out before the Tribunal in the second appeal. Further, I find from the impugned order that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with the issue in detail and recorded the following findings : I observed that while passing the order of confiscation, adjudicating authority has held that the models of G-5 Mobiles shown in the invoice of M/s Pranneet Electronics Pvt. Ltd. were different, as they do not match with the G-5 mobiles which have been detained and when the physical verification was done then it was found. There were no names of importer company address, year and month of import printed on the cover/packet Made in China words only were found to be printed on the packets, therefore, it appears that the mobiles were illegally imported. All the model of detained tintel Chinese Mobiles sets were perused then it was found that the name of importer company of these mobile sets, was printed as M/s R. V. Solution Pvt. Ltd., Karolbag, New Delhi and the year and month was printed as March, 2011. M/s Naeem and Sons Pvt. Ltd. presented the invoice issued by M/s R.V.Solutions Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defended their case on the basis of documentary evidences, on the contrary, department has failed to bring any tangible evidences. Thus, mere on assumption that date of manufacture, bill of entry and invoice issued to the appellant are of different months, therefore, confiscated mobiles do not pertain with the said invoice is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly, its confiscation is against law and the same is liable to be set aside. I find force in the submission of appellant as this is a prevalent practice in every trade, further if there was any problems regarding the models then the investigation officers should have asked clarifications from the owner of M/s Praneet Electronics Pvt. Ltd. who appeared on 02.12.2011 to tender his statement. They too, would have clarified,but despite presence of their representative, no query/investigation was done. The legal representative of M/s Parannet Electronics Pvt. Ltd. had appeared and his statement under section 108 was taken by Superintendent of Customs. The representative had admitted in his statement that they import the mobile from China and he has also verified the bill of entry produced by the applicant. If they recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
