TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not acceptable for the reason that no supplier would supply a high priced goods against an order of less priced goods for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in imposing penalty for mis-declaration needs no interference. It is also an admissible fact that copper scrap druid are not absolutely permitted for import and these import is regulated by the licence to be issued by the Central Pollution Control Board , which appellant did not have at the time of import but going by the CBEC Circular and Public notice, such goods can be cleared for home consumption to the interested buyer with approval of the importer - the goods can be cleared to the intended buyer in possession of such licence upon execution of bonds by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act with option for redemption on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 3,00,000/- against re-export only as copper scrap druid was a prohibited goods. Penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- on appellant under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act was imposed for wilful suppression and incorrect description of goods. Appellant challenged the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai-II who reduced the fine of ₹ 1,50,000/- taking proportion of disputed copper scrap druid imported against Aluminium Scrap Twang and confirmed rest of the orders of adjudicating authority. Appellant is before this Tribunal against such order. 3. In the memo of appeal and during the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act, 1962 would make the provision redundant as both confiscation with redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and re-export are two different actions for which he prays to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department, while reiterating the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), argued that appellant had not only violated provisions of Hazardous and Others Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement Rules, 2018) in importing hazardous waste without Central Pollution Control Board licence/registration, it had also misdeclare the description and value of goods imported by it. For whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
