TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and if the appellants have claimed wrong classification according to their limited understanding of the customs law, mens rea cannot be attributed to them nor confiscation and imposition of penalty can be resorted to. The appellant will be liable to pay differential duty as computed by the lower authorities - the order of confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty are set aside - appeal allowed in part. - C/51076/2017-CU[DB] - C/A/56661/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 21-9-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Present G.P. Singh, Consultant for the appellant Present Shri Govind Dixit, DR for the respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department has re-classified some of the items which resulted in additional duty. He argued that classification given to their understanding cannot be a reason for alleging mis-declaration and confiscation of the imported goods. He relied on the following case laws:- i) Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. Vs. CC Chennai 2014 (313) ELT 680 (Tri-Chennai) ii) CC Mumbai Vs. R.K. Impex 2010 (259) ELT 725 (Tri-Mum) 5. The Ld. DR supported the impugned order. 6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, we find that the classification of some of the items imported by the appellant, were changed by the customs officers. This resulted in extra duty required to be paid in respect of these items. It has been argued that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , if the intention is to cast some responsibility on the assessees to indicate correct classification and rate of duty for quick clearance under the liberalized system specially made applicable to accredited clients of the department. 7. As such, following the ratio of the precedent decisions cited above, I set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to the confiscation of the impugned goods, imposition of redemption fine and imposition of penalty. 7. In view of the above, we are of the view that the appellant will be liable to pay differential duty as computed by the lower authorities. However, the order of confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty are set aside. 8. Accordingly, appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
