TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e confiscation of the goods is sustainable only in respect of the goods covered under the Bill of Entry No. 5301915, dated 26.11.2011. The goods covered under this Bill of Entry were seized and provisionally released pending adjudication of the case. The imposition of redemption fine amounting to ₹ 12,50,000/- for this consignment u/s 125 of the CA, 1962 is upheld. It cannot be said that the mis-declaration was willful with intention to evade customs duty. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed on the appellant is also reduced from ₹ 10 lakhs to ₹ 5 lakhs u/s 112 A read with Section 114 AA of the CA. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/50870/2015-Cu(DB) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of redemption fine. The Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original covered not only the goods imported under the above Bill of Entry but also a few earlier consignments. Penalty amounting to ₹ 10 lakhs was also imposed under Section 112 (a) read with Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. When the order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), he upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence, the present appeal. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri Mohan Lal, ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri SK Poddar, Ld. DR for the respondent. 3. The ld. Counsel assailed the impugned order mainly on the following grounds: i) CRCL has given the test report to the effect that the imported goods are in the nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical to that covered in the present proceedings. The consignment at Nava Sheva cannot be taken as a basis for deciding the classification of the present consignment. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. The importer filed Bill of Entry declaring the goods as Nylon knitted fabric and classified the same under CTH 60063100. Samples of the goods were got tested by CRCL laboratories, who had confirmed that the goods were not in the nature of knitted fabrics but were actually Net fabrics made out of Nylon (Polyamide). Considering, the goods net fabric, the Customs reclassified the same under CTH 58041090, which attracted higher rate of duty @ 10% or ₹ 200/- per Kg, whichever was higher. Since, the re-classification of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011, the goods involved have already been cleared and were not available for confiscation at the time of passing the impugned order. Consequently, we are of the view that only the differential customs duty can be demanded in respect of the earlier consignment. In the absence of the goods, no order of confiscation under Section 111(m) can be made on these goods. Consequently, the redemption fine imposed on the same is set aside. 9. We note that this is a classification dispute. Revenue could arrive at the correct classification only on the basis of test report. Hence, it cannot be said that the mis-declaration was willful with intention to evade customs duty. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
