TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l containers are imported of the same raw material, over a period of time, some discrepancy found in two or three containers, it cannot be said that there is any mala fide or mis-declaration on the part of the importer. Further, the appellant have taken all precautions before the importation and have given proper description of the Goods to be imported in the purchase order. The consignment was also accompanied by test report from a duly authorized laboratory in the country of exporter. No case of mis-declaration - appellant allowed to re-export the goods under dispute - confiscation, redemption fine and penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/70555/2016-CU(SM) - Final Order No. 70660/2016 - Dated:- 9- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Rubber Research Institute of Vietnam, which states the date of test as 22/5/2015. The goods tested being natural rubber SVR 10, 60 MTS rubber of SVR-10. Further certifying that the goods are as per sales contract dated 7/5/2015 of Vietnam Rubber Investment Corporation, wherein the parameters namely- i) Dirt Content, ii) Ash and iii) Plasticity Retention Index (PRI) are within the prescribed limits. The test report further states that all tests on the samples submitted are carried out according to Vietnamese standard TCVN 3769-2004, which test method is equivalent to ISO-2000. 2. The bill of entry No. 9843394 dated 9/7/2015 was assessed and clearance for the goods allowed subject to no objection certificate' from the Rubber Board. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 14//3/2016, waived the condition of show cause and requested for personal hearing, to expedite the matters, so as to minimize the detention charges of the containers in Port. The appellant was heard on 4/4/2016 and their contentions were considered. The learned Commissioner vide the impugned order has been pleased to ordered confiscation of the consignment of natural rubber under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Act and further gave the option to redeem on payment of ₹ 12,00,000/- as redemption fine and on fulfillment/payment of such condition allowed the goods to be re-exported. Further fine of ₹ 4,00,000 have been imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Act. The learned Commissioner observed that the consignm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Tribunal in the case of Zenith Rubber Plastic Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2010 (262) E.L.T. 272, wherein under similar facts and circumstances the imported rubber did not conform to the BIS Specification prescribed with respect to PRI. This Tribunal had held that the importer had taken all precautions before import and no mala-fide have been found against him. Further no case is made out that the appellant was aware of the deficiency in the goods, hence no case of mis-declaration is made out and accordingly held the goods are not liable for confiscation and accordingly set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed. 4. The learned D.R. for revenue relies on the impugned order. He further relies on the ruling of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
