TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted T-Shirts, Men's cotton knitted Shorts, Men's Nylon woven Shorts, Ladies Leather sandals, Rubber Slippers, Cotton towels of three different sizes. The Commissioner has also fixed the total assessable value of the goods at ₹ 34,30,133/- and has ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (l) (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) under Section 125 (2) of the Act ibid. He has also imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each on the appellants under Section 112 (a) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Ashtalakshmi Marketing filed Bill of Entry No. 466198 dated 21.2.2003 under DEPB scheme th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the packages. Out of the items found in the consignment, only three items were declared in the Bill of entry viz. Rubber Slipper, Towel 14 x 14 and Towels 27 x 54 and the rest of the items were undeclared. Vide their letter dated 31.5.2003 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Sea Port, SUB Section, the importers inter alia stated that On examination of the goods, it was realised by the Customs as well as by them, that the goods packed in the Container No. MLCU 392584-1 was NOT what was actually consigned by them and stated to have been supplied/shipped under the cover of Supplier's Commercial Invoice No. P 003/2003 dated 4.2.2003 . They have also stated that they have no option but to abandon the garments found packed in the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndoned the goods before clearance for home consumption. He therefore, prayed for allowing the appeals. 4. Smt. R. Bhagyadevi, learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the impugned order and submitted that mis-declaration is admitted and the appellants have been rightly penalised. She has also submitted that request of the supplier for re-export has also been rightly denied in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC, Kol. Vs. Grand Prime Ltd. reported in 2003 (57) RLT 365 (SC)-2003 (155) ELT 417 (SC). She, therefore, prayed for rejection of the appeals. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the case records and perused the case laws cited. We ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the importers, that there were mix up in the packagings in the shipment and that it was very difficult to find out the quantity of shirts inside the packages. We further find from para 23.03 of the order impugned that the supplier viz. M/s. Pals Trading Co. in reply to the show cause notice have intimated the Department that there was mistake in despatching wrong and unsolicited goods and that they own up responsibility for the lapse. They have also explained that the reason for the mix up was because of huge volumes of business conducted by them and that the lapse was made good by subsequent shipment. They have also stated that they are the rightful owners of the goods and they requested for permission to re-export the goods without f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayer for re-export of the goods cannot be denied and allowed re-export of the goods. We see that the ratio of that order squarely applies to the present appeal also. Accordingly, following the ratio of the said order, we uphold the order of confiscation and allow the prayer of the supplier to re-export the goods without payment of duty, but on payment of a redemption fine of ₹ 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh, fifty thousand). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to think that interests of justice would be met if the penalty imposed on the supplier is set aside and we order accordingly. Thus Appeal No. C/152/2004 is partially allowed to the extent indicated above. 7. Now, coming to the appeal filed by the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
