9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after referred to as main appellant) while appeal No.C/860/10 is filed by the CHA. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records we find that the issue that falls for consideration is whether main appellant has mis-declared the goods for export, rendering them liable for confiscation, hence to be penalised and redemption fine to be imposed; another appellant is to be penalised for violation of Customs Act or otherwise. 4. These two appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal vide final order No.A/107 & 108/2012/CSTB/C-I dated 3rd February 2012 at the stay stage itself. Aggrieved by final order dated 3rd February 2012 Revenue preferred an appeal before Hon'ble High Court Bombay in Customs appeal No.93 of 2012. Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,09,45,600/- and Rs. 1,49,43,500/- respectively totally amounting to Rs. 3,58,89,100/-; c) The goods exported under Shipping Bill No.7308538 dated 16.06.2009 to be valued at Rs. 1,77,84,000/- should not be held liable to confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Custom Act, 1962; d) The goods attempted to be exported under Shipping Bill Nos.7311377 and 7311135 both dated 18.06.2009 to be valued at Rs. 3,58,89,100/- (Rs.2,09,45,600/- and Rs. 1,49,43,500/- respectively) should not be confiscated under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962; e) Penalty should not be imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Custom Act, 1962; f) Penalty should not be imposed under Section 114AA of the Custom Act, 1962. - and Shri Bharat Padia, the Executive D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mis-declaration of value also. He reiterates the findings of adjudicating authority. 9. On consideration of facts and submissions made, we find that the issue is regarding the confiscation of goods entered for export by main appellant and consequently imposition of penalty and redemption fine. 10. We find that there is no dispute that there was mis match of the description given on the packages and the documents. It is also undisputed that the goods were found of standard quality of drug intermediate and were not prohibited goods. It is also undisputed that on provisional release of the seized goods, the same were exported at the same value. We note that adjudicating authority in the impugned order in paragraph No.39(w) has recorded tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, 1962. e) Penalty is not imposed upon Shri Stephen Coelho and Shri Bharat Padia under Section 114(iii) of the Custom Act, 1962; f) No penalty is imposed under Section 114AA of the Custom Act, 1962 on any person. This order is passed without prejudice to any other action(s) which may be taken against any person(s), whether named herein or not, under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force. 10. It is seen from the records that lower authorities are not denying the fact that there was only a mis match description of the goods entered for export initially which were exported subsequently by making correct declarations as to description and value. In our view the findings recorded by adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
