TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the limit prescribed in the EPCG licence - duty demand set aside. Confiscation - misdeclaration of the quantity of goods imported - Held that: - the quantity declared in the bill of entry is less than the actual quantity imported and Section 111(l) has rightly invoked. Further it is seen that the quantity and value declared in the bill of entry does not match with the actual quantity found and the consignment thus Section 111(m) has also rightly been invoked. Imposition of redemption fine - Held that: - the redemption fine in respect of imports made vide bill of entry No. 3054 is revised to ₹ 3 lakhs only. In respect of imports made vide bill of entry No. 2658 redemption fine of ₹ 2lakhs has been imposed, the same is upheld. Imposition of penalty - Held that: - there was a error in the bill of entry No. 3054 when the same was filed before Customs on 17.6.2002 still no efforts were made to correct the declaration. Infact the subsequent bill of entry was also filed that wrong details. In these circumstances, the penalty of ₹ 1 lakh imposed u/s 112(a) is reasonable. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/428, 1087, 706/06 - A/8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 sets 04 sets + 3 pcs 12 pcs (04 sets x 03 pcs) + 3 pcs Mixing Heard 187956 Consignment on which CIU started investigation. Consignment still with Customs = 15 pcs IV 0218 / 02.08.2002 33366 232981 08 sets 08 sets 24 pcs (08 sets x 3 pcs) 232981 Cleared on 10-10-2002 V 19 / 09.08.2002 33440 111516 03 sets 03 pcs 03 pcs Mixing Head 51276 Cleared on 06-012-2002 VI 247 / 13.09.2003 3378 111516 03 sets 03 sets 09 pcs (03 sets x 03 pcs) 111516 Cleared on 11-10-2002 TOTAL 1367107 40 SETS 34 Full sets + 120 pcs (40 sets) 1367107 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 218 was also confirmed. The goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 429, 3054 and 218 totally valued at ₹ 52,03,221/- were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and redemption fine of ₹ 10,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation was imposed. The goods imported vide bill of entry No. 2658 were confiscated under Section 111(m) of Customs Act and offered for redemption on payment of fine of ₹ 2,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- was imposed on the main appellant. Penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- was also imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Anil Sharma Executive (Projects) to M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. Penalty of ₹ 50,000/- was also imposed on M/s. Zulash Clearing Shipping Agency under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by this order, M/s. Wockhardt Ltd., Shri Anil Sharma and M/s. Zulash Clearing Shipping Agency are in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Counsel for M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. and Shri Anil Sharma argued that they had obtained the EPCG licence for the entire goods imported by them. The total quantity of goods imported by them by the above 6 bill of entries were covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shipping Agency is same as the defense of Shri Anil Sharma. 3. Ld. A.R. relied on the impugned order. He argued that components are not covered by the EPCG licence and the said licence is only for mixers. He argued that the appellant Shri Anil Sharma and the CHA were aware of the mismatch in the quantity invoice and the quantity ship but still they did not inform the Revenue of the mismatch and, therefore, their role is apparent. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that no demand has been raised in respect of imports made by bill of entry No. 1595 and 2457. It is seen that vide bill of entry No. 1595 three pieces of mixing heads were imported and the same were cleared on 6.12.2002. Vide bill of entry No. 2457, three sets of mixers were imported and the same was cleared on 12.11.2002 the benefit of Notification has been denied in respect of bill of entries No. 429, 3054,2658 218. A perusal of the chart of clearances as reproduced in para 1 of this order shows that the total quantity of goods imported is 40 sets. Original EPCG Licence dt. 2.4.2002 covered 25 sets. However vide amendment sheet No.1 dt. 28.6.2002 the said quantity was enhanced from 25 to 40 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill of entry was filed 4 days after this correspondence. From the above, it is apparent that the appellants and Shri Anil Sharma were aware of the error in the invoice and deliberately suppress the same from Revenue. From the statement of Shri Anil Sharma, it is apparent that he knowingly suppressesed this information from Revenue. It is seen that Section 111(m) has been invoked for confiscation of imports made vide bill of entry No. 2658, 429, 3054 218. In respect of bill of entry No. 3054 under Section 111(l) has also been invoked n so far as goods in excess of those declared. Section 111(l) and Section 111(m) are reads as under: SECTION 111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. - The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation: - (l) any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under section 77; (m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
