TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertent has not been given due consideration by the lower authorities. Nothing has been placed on record to controvert the claim that the shipment had been effected by mistake and that the offer of re-export was not genuine - In the absence of such evidence, the finding that the provisions of section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 is invokable is not tenable in law. Likewise, the invoking of section 112 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available to re-imported goods, rendered the goods liable with confiscation with penal consequences. While the original authority imposed redemption fine of ₹ 2,00,000 and penalty of ₹ 1,00,000 under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, the impugned order reduced these to ₹ 1,00,000 and ₹ 50,000 respectively. 2. Heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorized Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had also confirmed that new machine was despatched to the importer in India by mistake. In the circumstances, there is no reason for us not to accept the explanation of the importer that the receipt of the new machine in October, 2000 was a bona fide mistake, and was not the case of misdeclaration of the goods. We, therefore set aside the impugned order in regard to confiscation, fine and penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such, we are of the view that the imposition of redemption fine and penalty upon the appellants are not justified. We accordingly set aside the same allow the re-export of the consignment without any redemption fine, penalty and duty. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 5. It is seen that the justification afforded on behalf of the appellant that the error was inadvertent has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
