9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), JNPT, Raigad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had imported "rough marble blocks" and filed Bill of Entry No.3933197 dated 29.6.2011 for assessment. As per DGFT Notification No.36/2009-2014 dated 31.3.2010 and under the Fore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, there were also proposals for confiscation of goods and for imposition of penalty. The matter was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 14.7.2011, wherein the value of the subject goods was redetermined at Rs. 69,90,427/- and the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Besides, the impugned order has also given the option to redeem the imported g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies vs. CC, JCH, Mumbai - 2004 (177) ELT 1144 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Guru Kripa Marbles vs. CC, Nhava Sheva - 2006 (201) ELT 79 (Tri.-Mumbai), in support of his claim for reduction of the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. The fact is not under disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed on the appellant, we find that the original authority has not considered the aspect of margin of profit expected to be earned in normal course of trade in respect of such imported consignment. Further, we also find that in respect of the same goods imported earlier by some other importer, viz., Guru Kripa Marbles, the Tribunal has reduced the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
