TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of examination also, it was not disputed about the technical nature of the classification and till such time, the appellant was not of the concrete opinion that it was only industrial salt. Furthermore, the appellant pointed out that as per the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the Test Report by the customs was not an authenticated one and the test was not conducted properly as per the specification under the said control order. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the appellant has not redeemed the goods which are valued nearly at ₹ 52,00,000/-, thus, the penalty can be reduced - the penalty imposed on the appellant at ₹ 7,00,000/- is reduced to ₹ 2,00,000/- - Appeal allowed in part. - C.M.A.No.801 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 5. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the appeal are that the assessee, who is engaged in logistics and forwarding business got an order for export of Industrial Salt from a firm in Malaysia. The assessee is stated to have procured Industrial Salt from various traders through one Mr.Rajesh and filed two Shipping Bills dated 22.07.2009 for export of Industrial Salt - Technical Grade. They filed a declaration to the shipping bill as 150 Metric Tons of Industrial Salt to be exported to Malaysia with declared value of ₹ 12,73,325/- FOB. The goods were presented for inspection by the Customs House Agent of the appellant and they were examined by the customs authorities and permission was granted to stuff the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the restricted nature of the goods. The Managing Director of the appellant, in his statement dated 05.08.2009 admitted mis-classification of export goods and stated that he was not aware of the market value of the export goods. 7. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 30.12.2009 was issued calling upon the appellant to explain as to why the cargo declared as Industrial Salt should not be re-classified as Potassium Chloride ; why the declared value should not be rejected and re-determined at ₹ 51,60,400/-; why the cargo should not be confiscated; and why penalty should not be imposed on the appellant/exporter. 8. The appellant submitted its reply and the show cause was adjudicated by the respondent and Order-in-Original da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redeemed the goods by paying redemption fine. 11. We find that the Tribunal disbelieved the stand taken by the appellant that they were not aware of the restriction. What weighed in the minds of the Tribunal was that the appellant did not redeem the goods which was valued at ₹ 51,60,400/- by the adjudicating authority. Thus, having been satisfied that the appellant had lost the goods and the plea raised by them that they were not aware of the restrictions or the market value, the Tribunal could have exercised discretion and imposed a minimum penalty. 12. We have perused the statement recorded from the Managing Director on 04.08.2009 and the facts set out in the said statement would clearly show that they provided the bills in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
