M/S. Ind-Sphinx Prevision Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. CC(A) CUS/EXP/323/2014 dated 13/03/2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Ind-Sphinx Prevision Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs Respondent

New Delhi.

Appearance:

Shri Ajay Jain, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri A K Dhawan, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 22.1.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/50248/2015-Cu(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods declared as Solid Tungsten Carbide Blanks under Advance license. The goods were assessed on the basis of declaration made in the invoice and bill of entry. On examination, it was found that quantity of goods declared by the appellants is 25,000 pcs. Instead of 50,000 pcs. found during the investigation. Thereafter the appellant submitted that supplier packing department dispatched 50,000 pcs against required 25,000 pcs by mistake.

3. In these circumstances, the adjudicating authority held the goods liable for confiscation for mis-declaration of the quantity. Accordingly, imposing redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the redemption fine and penalty were reduced from Rs.75,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively.

4. Aggrieved from the said order, appellants is before me.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that both the lower authorities have found that there was no fault done on behalf of the appellant, therefore redemption fine and penalty are not imposable. He submits that the supplier of the goods in their invoice dated April, 2013 and sent a letter to the effect that there was a mistake of the staff of supplier and quantity of 50,000 pieces was dispatched instead of 25000 pcs. The appellant also came to know of this fact only at the time of examination. Therefore, as there was no fault of the appellant, redemption fine is not imposable.

6. The learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that in this case, the quantity of the goods were found on examination to be highly excessive and therefore, goods are liable for confiscation, consequently redemption fine and penalty were imposed.

7. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions.

8. In this case, the Bill of Entry was filed on 1.5.13 and examination report was obtained on 6.5.2013. Thereafter vide letter dated 8.5.2013, the appellant submits that due to mistake of the supplier of goods, the excessive quantity has been dispatched. On perusal of the record, I find that the letter issued by the supplier is undated. Moreover, the supplier has issued two invoices by same number on the same date, i.e. invoice No. SPH046 dated 29.4.2013 for 25000 pcs as well as 50,000 pcs. In these circumstances, I hold that there was a mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the lower authorities has correctly held the goods are liable for confiscation.

9. After considering the fact that the goods have been imported by the appellant for their own use and for export of the goods, therefore, I hold that redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant are excessively high. In these circumstances, I reduced the redemption fine to Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirtyfive thousand only) and penalty to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).

10. With these terms, appeal is disposed of.

(operative part of the order pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

4