9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y ld. Advocates for the appellants and Ms. Suchitra Sharma, ld. DR for the Revenue, we find that M/s. Global Infotech imported certain items and filed bill of entry on 08.09,2014 declaring various items imported by them along with value of the same. As per the table annexed to the order of the Commissioner, items 1 to 30 were declared by the appellant which are in the nature of Toys, Ash Tray, Soft balls etc. There is no dispute about the description of the said declared items. However, the Revenue enhanced the value of the same based upon the NIDB data. Apart from the said items, the consignment was also found to contain 40 boxes of Glass Chattons, which were not declared by the appellant. 3. The matter was taken up for adjudication. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue has classified the same under the residuary entry 7018 1090 which attracts the higher rate of duty. He draws our attention to the Tribunal's order in the case of Art Beads Pvt. Limited vs. CC (Import) Mumbai - 2013 (292) ELT 472 (Tri. Mum.) wherein the Glass Chatons have been held to be beads. He submits that even though the said decision was placed before the Commissioner, he has side-lined the same and has not given any finding in respect of the said classification dispute. Ld. Advocate further submits that items 1 to 30 have been confiscated under the provisions of Section 119 of the Customs Act, on the ground that the same have been used to conceal the undeclared Glass Chatons. He refers to the Tribunal decision in the case of Kan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared by the importer, were covered by the various other items which were declared by the assessee and such coverage was with a malafide intention to conceal the Glass Chatons. As such, the confiscation of other items under Section 119 of the Act is appropriate. 8. After appreciating the submissions made by both sides, we have already held that demand of duty in respect of 30 declared items by enhancing their value on NIDB Data basis cannot be upheld. For the said reasons, then confiscation can also not be upheld. We will examine the confiscation of the said items, in terms of section 119 later on. 9. As regards Glass Chatons, it stands fairly admitted before us that the same were not declared by the importer. As such, we hold that such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the penalty on Shri Pankaj Gupta, Partner of the firm, we find that the partnership firm has already been held liable to penalty and as such imposition of separate penalty on the partner is not justified. For the above proposition, we refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) vs. Jupiter Exports - 2007 (213) ELT 641 (Bom.). Accordingly, the penalty imposed on Shri Pankaj Gupta is set-aside. 12. As regards penalty on Shri Rohit Saran, we find that the same stands imposed only for alleged violation of CHA Regulations and not for the contravention of any of the provision of Customs Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
