TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence to allege that in case import contains more than 1%, the appellant have any involvement or understanding with the supplier. On the basis of these documents, it is clear that the appellant cannot be made responsible if any lapse committed by the supplier. The appellant have already abandoned the goods. Considering all these facts, it is clear that the appellant is not responsible for any misdeed, if any, committed by the supplier therefore, the appellant is not liable for any penalty. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 112 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No.10330 of 2020-SM - Final Order No. A/11230 /2022 - Dated:- 14-10-2022 - MR. RAMES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein, the appellant contested the imposition of penalty of Rs.2 lacs as they have abandoned the goods, so there was no question of contesting the imposition of redemption fine. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal therefore, the appeallant is before me. 02. Shri Amit Laddha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on the basis of all import documents including pre-inspecting certificate, it was a clear condition that the waste paper should not contain more than 1% non-paper material therefore if at all, there is any lapse on the part of the supplier without the knowledge of the appellant, the appellant should not be penalize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords. I find that the imported goods were confiscated and penalty was imposed on the ground that the waste paper contains more than 1% non-paper material. It is undisputed fact that the inspection of entire goods have not been undertaken. The percentage of non-paper material arrived at on eye estimation that too not of the entire goods but a small and part quantity of one container. There is no certificate or report from expert even on the eye estimation basis. In this position, I find that the percentage of non-paper material was arrived at on assumption and presumption basis for this reason itself the goods were not liable for confiscation. Without prejudice, I also find that as per the documents submitted by the appellant such as contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
