9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - For the Respondent Per: Bench The facts of the case are that appellants had imported "woven cotton yarn dyed fabrics within 57 / 58" declaring the value of Rs. 1,52,59,728/-. The goods had been imported claiming 0% duty under DFRC / DFIA licence under Notification No.40/2006-Cus. dt. 31.05.2006. On examination and further investigation, it emerged that the appellant had not declared the actua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , rejected DFRC / DFIA licences produced by the appellant, however dropped confiscation and penalty proceedings initiated in the SCN. On appeal by the department, lower appellate authority vide the impugned order dt. 27.08.2010 set aside the order of lower authority dropping confiscation and penalty and imposed penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. Aggrieved, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f clearance without payment of duty. However, imposition of penalty by the lower appellate authority is not justified. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri B. Balamurugan supports the impugned order. He submits that around 40% of the goods were found not matching with the declared GSM; that this was a clear case of misdeclaration with intent to wrongly avail the benefit of the notifications. He als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant's contentions that the licences had been purchased by them from the open market and that they had declared the GSM of the fabrics as per the invoices and the packing list surely are mitigating factors. Taking all these factors into account, we are of the opinion that a reduced penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) under Section 112 (a) (ii) of the Customs Act would meet th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
