2021 (11) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0.2018 and was examined by team of Preventive Officers, New Custom House at ICD, Tughlakabad on 10.12.2018. The goods were found to be T.Y.A. Plant cosmetic products having individual packing, but packed in large cartons. The manufacturer of goods was shown as M/s. Jaidili Cosmetics Company Ltd., Longhu Industrial Zone, Lain Jiang Road, Shantou, China whereas the invoice reflects that the manufacturer as M/s. Shantou Aldieces Cosmetics Co. Ltd. No.3, Longxin 1st Street, Longxin Industrial District Longhu Shantou City 515000, Gaungdong Province China. The goods were also found to be mis-declared in description as well as quantities, accordingly were seized by seizure Memo dated 12.10.2018 in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act. 1.1 The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Counsel has also impressed upon the CDSCO certificate as was produced before the adjudicating authorities incorporating the impugned product. However, the same was not considered. While relying upon the decision of this Tribunal, Chennai Bench in the case of Shri Natraja Trading Company vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2009 (236) ELT 681, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these submissions, it is mentioned on behalf of the Department that present is the case where the appellant himself has acknowledged its mistake about the address of the manufacturer being wrong and also about the products to have been misdeclared. He also admitted to not to have the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cted goods. No doubt section 125 of the Customs Act gives the importer an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation but the word used in the provision is "may', hence, the intention of statute is apparently clear that the discretion lies with the Confiscating Officer to either impose fine in lieu of confiscation or to order the absolute confiscation. This particular perusal is sufficient to answer the afore-framed query in affirmative. Further from the facts of the present case, it is clearly a case of admitted misdeclaration: 1) Of the goods which are absolutely confiscated to not have been mentioned in CDSCO Certificate. 2) About the details of the manufacturer to have been wrongly mentioned on the consignment and 3) About the dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X