2016 (8) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... confiscation of the vehicle imported vide B/E No. 848912 dated 20.4.2005 in terms of Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 13. I, however, permit redemption of the goods in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, on payment of Fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). The option will be exercised by the importer within 15 days of the receipt of this order. 14. I also impose a penalty on M/s. B.G. Shrike Construction technology Limited, the Importer who by his omissions has rendered the goods liable for confiscation, in terms of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)" 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 848912 dated 20/4/2005 for clearance of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is classifiable either under 8705 or under 8413 the exemption is available so longer the condition of end use application is complied with. The said condition is not under dispute. The only dispute is the classification of the imported equipment. If the goods is classified under 8705 then the importer is required to produce homologation certificate which appellant failed to produce. The adjudicating authority observed that importer s equipment more specifically covered under CTH 8705 therefore the goods were imported in violation of provision of Section 3 of the Foreign Trade(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Section 11(2) (u) of Customs Act, 1962 hence liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. Accordi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of facts and circumstances of the case there is no malafide intention on the part of the appellant.  They only made their claim for change of classification even though in the bill of entry they initially classified the goods under CTH 8705. We are of the view that merely because the appellant claimed such classification it cannot be tantamount to mis-declaration. The only implication in case of CTH 8705, Homologation certificate has to be produced and in other classification the same is not required. The whole issue gets boiled down to the point that even if it is presumed that the goods is classified under CTH 8705 the only lapse on the part of the appellant is that they have not produced Homologation certificate. It is also observe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X