9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gurvinder Singh Kochar, Shri Vimal Shah and Shri Anmol Sethi which the Ld. Commissioner refrained from imposing penalty on the ground that that under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 penalty can be imposed only on cases related to export of goods and not on import of goods. The adjudicating authority solely relied upon the 27th report of standing committee on Finance in (2005-2006) 14th Lok sabha which records the intention behind section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 which was inserted with effect from 13.07.2006. Being aggrieved by the order in law, Revenue filed the present appeal seeking imposition of penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the aforesaid three respondents. 2. Shri L. Patra, Ld. Asst. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. The revenue has not challenged this part of the finding in the present appeal. Therefore, this finding being final, the appeal against both these persons do not sustain. He further submits that this tribunal in the party's appeals which were disposed off vide order dated 14.5.2018 vacated the confiscation of the said goods i.e.,Sony brand panels and t.v. sets. Only Samsung brand T.V. were ordered to be confiscated. However, the redemption fine related to confiscation said goods was reduced from Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs and entire penalty was set aside. On the basis of this order also no penalty is warranted under section 114AA on the respondent. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5.18 only Samsung T.V. sets were ordered to be confiscated and also taking a lenient view, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 5,00,000 from Rs. 50 lakhs. 5. It is observed that in the show cause notice, the charges for which the penalty under section 112(a)(i) and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 are almost same which is given in para 18 & 19 are reproduced below: "18. Shri Gurvinder Singh Kochhar, Manager of M/s. Raj Traders, Mumbai & Power of Attorney holder in M/s Ideal Impex, New Delhi appears to be master mind in the instant case as he was the person who looks after entire business activities of both the firms M/s. Raj Traders, Mumbai and M/s. Ideal Impex, New Delhi. He looks after purchase, sales, import, communication with o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lder in M/s Ideal Impex, New Delhi had knowingly used or caused to be used self-declaration showing the incorrect BIS registration number, name of supplier, description, value & Models No. Of the imported goods, etc., they have rendered themselves liable to penalty under Section 114AA of the Act. 6. This Tribunal dealing with the parties appeal in order dated 14.05.2018, set aside the penalty on all the appellants imposed under section 112(a)(i) for which the following finding was given : "7. Turning to the issue of valuation, it is clear that the original authority having relied upon the prices furnished by M/s Sony India Ltd to reject the declared value, there can be no quarrel on the legality of this approach. Nevertheless, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- 8. On the import effected by ..... 9. Undoubtedly, intellectual property ........ 10. To prevent imports ...... 13. The Rules exist to detect and destroy counterfeits. Counterfeits can be detected only though the prescribed procedure. That does not appear to have occurred and, hence, the goods are not counterfeits. Section 11 and, consequently section 111, is not liable to be invoked. The confiscation being without authority of law is set aside as is the penalty. 14. Just as we are not inclined to accept the value adopted for "SONY" television sets, we are disinclined to uphold the re-valuation of "SONY" panels for not being compliant with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional finding which is as below: " As for penalty proposed under Section 114AA on Shri Bimal Shah, Proprietor of M/s Raj traders and Shri Anmol Sethi, Propreitor of M/s Ideal Impex, I find that penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is not imposable on them for the reasons recorded hereinabove. Evehn otherwise also, I find that since penalties on rthe firms of which they are proprietors have been imposed under appropriate section, they being proprietors cannot be penalized for the same offence. It is a settled law and there are a catena of decision on the issue that separate penalties are not imposable on sole proprietorship firm and its proprietor. I place reliance on such decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
