TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was examined and it was found that out of 139 packages, 54 packages are personal effect/household articles and remaining 85 packages were cosmetic items which are not permitted to be brought to India through Mangalore Port. Further, the appellant has violated the provisions of Baggage Rules as well as Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and also the Board s Circular which prohibits the import of these goods through Mangalore Port and both the authorities have rightly upheld the absolute confiscation of the said goods. Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- It is on higher side because the appellant has not suppressed any material facts from the Department and she has filed the declaration before the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgo was examined in the presence of the authorized representative of the passenger and CHA on 13-10-2017, 16-10-2017 and 17-10-2017 at Central Warehousing Corporation, Mangalore. On examination of the packages, it was found that certain packages contained household articles and certain others contained only cosmetic items, which were in commercial quantity. On enquiry Smt. Sameena Begum, authorized representative of the appellant stated that the said cosmetic items belonged to shop run by the passenger in Dubai and as the shop was closed they were brought to India. As the said consignment consisted of cosmetic items in commercial quantity, the Baggage declaration filed by the passenger appeared to be misdeclared as personal effects to claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 133 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945; (iv) Penalty of ₹ 8,87,691/- and ₹ 4,43,845/- were imposed on the appellant under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962; and (v) Penalty of ₹ 8,87,691/- was imposed on the CHA under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appropriately appreciating the facts. He further submits that the goods have been confiscated without i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant under Sections 112(a) and 114AA is not sustainable because the essential requirements of those Sections are not present in the facts of the case. He also submits that the penalty imposed is disproportionate and is beyond the capacity of the appellant to pay. 5. On the other hand, the Learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has misdeclared the quantity as well as the description of the impugned goods and on examination, it was found that only 54 packages were personal effects/household articles and the remaining 85 packages were consisting of cosmetic items valued at ₹ 29,58,971/- were rightly confiscated because the said import was in violation of Rule 133 and Rule 43A of the Drugs and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressed any material facts from the Department and she has filed the declaration before the Customs as required under law. Moreover, she was not knowing the Customs Regulations and she was shifting from Dubai where she was running a shop which was closed and all the items brought in her baggage were cosmetic items and she was not aware of the requirement of law that Mangalore Port is not authorized port for import of impugned goods into India through sea. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the penalty to ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. As far as 54 packages are concerned, the department will immediately release the same on paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
