TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. Augustian, Adv For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Dy. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 31/10/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the Commissioner has imposed a fine of ₹ 5 lakhs under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and has also imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1. Briefly the facts of the present case are that Bill of Entry No.8070881 dt. 28/09/2012 was filed on behalf of the appellant by their Customs House Agent M/s. Natchart Private Ltd. for the clearance of amusement park equipments like crazy cars, mini disco, roller coaster e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the mistake from the supplier who wrongly loaded the materials; they sought permission to re-export the entire consignment at the earlier. They also produced letter OBE/GRW/NI5512 dt. 22/10/2012 from Union Bank of India evidencing GR waiver. Since the goods were found to be used goods and thereby the appellant has contravened the provisions of Section46 of the Customs Act, 1962 rendering the said goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also liable to penalty under Section 112(a). On the request of importer, show-cause notice was waived and the matter was decided on merit. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y him. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Gitanjali Gems Ltd. Vs. CC (CSI Airport), Mumbai [2011(264) ELT 574 (Tri. Mum.)] ii. Novel Digital Electronics Vs. CC (Imports), Chennai [2015(321) ELT 29 (Mad.)] iii. Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [1978(2) ELT (J159) (SC)] 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order by submitted that when the goods were physically examined at the port, it was found that they have been imported in violation of EPCG licence granted to the appellant. He further submitted that even though the goods have been reexported but the appellant is still liable for redemption fine and the penalty because they have misdeclared the goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
