TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is the same as polyester filament yarn in the original declaration is, therefore, not tenable and may have been an arguable submission if the revised classification was also disputed in this appeal. There is no finding that goods were undervalued - The fine determined for redemption and the penalty imposed appear disproportionate. Therefore, while upholding the confiscation of impugned goods under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962, the ends of justice will be served by restricting the fine to ₹ 50,000 and penalty under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 to ₹ 50,000. Appeal allowed in part. - Customs Appeal No 559 of 2009 - A/85881/2020 - Dated:- 5-11-2020 - Hon ble Dr D M Misra, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002, arising from the declared classification that would attribute any wrongful intent on the part of the appellant in opting for a heading in chapter 54 of First Schedule to Customs Act, 1962. It is contended that the adjudicating authority had inveigled an allegation of mis-declaration of value in the impugned order even though there is no evidence on record or any finding of such undervaluation. Contending that none of the statements recorded in the investigation were inculpatory, attention was drawn to the decision of the Tribunal in Lewek Altair Shipping Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs [2019 (366) ELT 318 (Tri)], and affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, holding that mere mention of wrong tariff or claimi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Counsel, in the light of these facts and circumstances before us. 6. In re Lewek Altair Shipping Pvt Ltd, the Tribunal, having restored the declared classification, set aside the confiscation as well as penalty. In that decision, with the exclusion of penal consequence resting on such facts, any incidental observation, pertaining to provisions of law that had not been the basis for granting relief, is in the nature of obiter which is no precedent. Therefore, the invoking of empowerment to confiscate in the impugned order cannot be faulted as also the imposition of penalty which follows therefrom. 7. However, as pointed out by Learned Counsel, there is no finding that goods were undervalued. The fine determined for redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
