TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. - MR. P. A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND Mrs. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Applicant : None For Respondent : Mr. P. Saravana Perumal, Addl. Commissioner (AR) ORDER The appellant-importer M/s. DLF Southern Towns Private Limited filed Bills of Entry for clearance for clearance of total quantity of 31360 bags of ordinary Portland Cement from Pakistan supplied by M/s. Maple Leaf Cement Limited, Pakistan. The appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No.29/2010, 4% SAD exemption which is applicable to prepackaged bags intended for retail sale. 2. As per the General Notes regarding Import Policy all prepackaged commodities, imported into India, shall in particular carry the following de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade Policy (Development Regulation) Act, 1992. For the above act, the importer also appeared liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer has not produced any additional documents to substantiate that the goods were imported for retail sale. 3.1 Accordingly, the goods were confiscated and the importer was given an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs.2,50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was also imposed on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 626 (Tri.-Mumbai) has denied the benefit of exemption Notification No. 29/2010-Cus. (supra). In that case, the aluminum profiles, hardware for furniture fittings though imported in pre-packed form, but since the same were not meant for retail sale under the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and rules framed thereunder, the exemption benefit was denied. In the present case, we have already observed that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that the imported goods are intended for retail sale and thus, the benefit of exemption is not available . 6. In view of the above findings of the Commissioner (A) which are admitted by the appellant and based on the decision of the Tribunal, we find that the importer has violated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
