M/S. Sumit Impex vs Commissioner Of Customs

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. ASR-CUSTM-PVR-AAP-136-14-15 dated 27.06.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals ), Chandigarh I]

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. Sumit Impex Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs Respondent

Amritsar

Appearance:

Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri M S Negi, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 26.08.2015

ORDER NO. FO/ 52736 /2015-Cus(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing redemption fine and penalty in the impugned order.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed two bills of entry for clearance of imported goods while filing IGM by the shipping line, the goods were declared as HMS only whereas the containers were containing the goods HMS and MS billets and as there is violation of Section 30 and Section 32 of Customs Act, 1962, therefore, both the lower authorities sought confiscation of the imported goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty on the appellant by issuing show cause notice and in adjudication thereafter, the adjudicating authority observed that appellant has violated the provisions of 111(f) and (g) and consequently held the goods as liable for confiscation and same can be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs.5,90,000/- and penalty of Rs.57,200/- on the appellant. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who held that goods are liable for confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs.3,50,000/- and penalty was also reduced to Rs.30,000/-. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before us.

3. The learned advocate appearing for the appelant submits that it is the shipping line who has to file the IGM and they have declared HMS wrongly instead of declaring HMS and MS billets. He also submits that there is no malafide intention of the appellant and mis-declaration was done by the shipping line, therefore, redemption fine and penalty is not imposable. He also submits that there is a duty difference of only Rs.57,000/- and appellant is regular importer. In that circumstances, it could not be intention of the appellant that they could have directed the shipping line to mis-declare the goods. Therefore, order of confiscation of goods be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned AR submits that vide letter dated 8.4.13 the appellant themselves have admitted their mistake and they have accepted that the mis-declaration as IGM was done on their behalf and what was done to save the customs duty. Therefore, redemption fine and penalty were rightly imposed on the appellant.

5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

6. In this case, vide letter dated 8.4.13, the appellant has clearly mentioned that we accept that the mis-declaration in IGM and in the overseas & supplier documents has been made at our behest, we had made the mistake to save the customs duty . We accept our mistake and we promise that this will not be repeated in future. As this admission has not been retracted by the appellant. Therefore, both the lower authorities have correctly held the goods liable for confiscation as goods have been misdeclared. As there is duty difference is of Rs.57,200/-, therefore, I hold that Redemption fine imposed on the appellant is excessively high. In these circumstances, redemption fine is reduced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only).

7. Considering the fact that appellant has mis-declared themselves or was done on their behalf, therefore penalty of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) imposed on the appellant is correct. With these terms, the following order is passed:-

1) The order of confiscation of the goods is confirmed.

2) Redemption fine is reduced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only); and

3) Penalty of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) is also confirmed.

With these terms, appeal is disposed of.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

4