TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of both the category of goods were also different. Thus, there was misdeclaration in respect of both description and value of goods. Further, the subject goods were also imported in violation of the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy. All these aspects of statutory contravention were admitted and accepted by the Proprietor of the appellant-importer in the statement recorded under summon in terms of Section 108 ibid. Hence, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the penal consequences provided under Sections 111, 125(1), 112(a)(i) and 114AA ibid are attracted for confiscation of imported goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalties. It is found from the available records that though the importer-app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in to the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed on Shri Sumit Agarwal reduced to ₹ 1,00,000. Appeal allowed in part. - C/87805 & 87803/2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/85728-85729/2020 - Dated:- 11-9-2020 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Neerav Mainkar, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Trupti Chavan, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein, M/s Mayank Granites had filed the Bills of Entry being nos. 8902086 and 8902228 both dated 17.11.2018 by declaring the goods as 'Crystallised Glass Panel Grade B'. Classification of the said goods were claimed under CTH 70169000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -importer, M/s Mayank Granites and its Proprietor Shri Sumeet Agarwal, proposing for change in the classification of the subject goods, confiscation of the imported goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalties. The matter arising out of the said SCN was adjudicated vide order dated 30.07.2019, wherein the proposals made therein were confirmed. The adjudication order had confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with option for redeeming the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1,18,85,000/- and imposed penalty of ₹ 15,00,000/- on the appellant-importer under Section 112(a)(i) ibid and imposed another penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- on Shri Sumeet Agarwal, Proprietor under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the other hand, Ms. Trupti Chavan, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue has reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. She further submitted that since the goods declared in the Bills of Entry were not actually imported by the appellant-importer and such mis-declaration of goods were detected by the department, confiscation of the imported goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty in the adjudication process is justified and as such, the impugned order sustains on merits and cannot be interfered with. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. In this case, the facts are not in dispute that the appellant had filed the Bills of Entry, declaring the description of goods as 'Crystallised Glass Panel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.12.2018. Further, the supplier had also expressed his willingness to take back the consignments as per the description provided in the Bills of Entry filed by the importer-appellant. However, it an admitted position that the importer-appellant did not take proper steps to check the cargo before presentation of the Bills of Entry for assessment purpose and accordingly, it cannot plead that the action on its part is entirely bonafide. The ratio of decisions of this Tribunal (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate are not applicable to this case inasmuch as the goods involved in those decided cases were exported by the concerned parties and were not allowed clearance for home consumption. We have also noted the contentions of the impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
