9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mis-declared in description as well as in value. After due inquiry, the case was adjudicated. The Original Authority held that the branded goods worth Rs. 33,63,458/- found to be counterfeit and accordingly cannot be allowed for commercial trade. He absolutely confiscated the said items. On other items, he re-assessed the value at Rs. 1,10,62,837/- and ordered them to be confiscated in terms of Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. However, the importer was given an option to redeem the said goods on payment of fine of Rs. 15 lakhs in terms of Section 125 of the Act. The importing company was imposed with a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and two directors of the importing company were imposed with a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuance of notice. 4. It is seen that the case was earlier listed before the Division Bench on 15.11.2016, 17.01.2017 and again on 27.02.2017, on that date, the matter was transferred to Single Member Bench and again a notice was issued to the respondent. It is seen that on none of these occasions, the respondent appeared or sent in any representation. As such, noting that already adequate opportunities have been provided, on more than four occasions, the matter is taken up for decision based on appeal records and with the assistance of the ld. AR. 5. I have perused the appeal records and the grounds of appeal by the Revenue. 6. On the issue regarding reduction of redemption fine and the penalty imposed on the importer, I agree with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legally sustainable or justified. Similarly, there is no reason recorded for reduction in penalty on the importing company, from Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. Following the same reasons recorded above and considering the magnitude of the offence, I find such reduction is neither justifiable nor legally sustainable. 7. Regarding penalties on the directors, the impugned order records that they acted in their capacity as Directors. There is no individual role in the offence. 8. I have perused the original order. The statements given by the Directors, clearly bring out their knowledge and their long experience in dealing with the similar imported goods. It is also noted that the importing company is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
