2000 (5) TMI 443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I have carefully considered the COD application praying for condonation of this delay. The reasons stated in the application appear to be genuine. There is no serious objection to this application. The COD application is, therefore, allowed and the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2. The appellants, vis. M/s. Airport Authority of India is a public sector undertaking, who have obtained the necessary clearance for pursuing the appeal, from the Committee on Disputes. The facts of this case are : The appellants filed Bill of Entry dated 14-8-1998 through their CHA for importation of Halogen Lamps for their own use on the runways of airports. The importer claimed classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 8539....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants. The only argument put across by the learned Advocate is that the fine and penalty are highly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, if any, committed by the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Learned Advocate has reiterated the grounds of the appeal and has, particularly, drawn my attention to the letter dated 3-9-1998 submitted by the appellants to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs with reference to the Bill of Entry in question. This letter was submitted in the wake of the proposal of the customs authorities to take penal action against them for importation without specific import licence. It was clearly stated in the letter to the effect that the appellants have been importing Halo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to contravene any provision of law warranting confiscation and penalty under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act. He has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 5. Learned JDR has opposed the above arguments. His submission is that the Commissioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, had no option other than confiscating the goods with option for redemption and also imposing a penalty on the party. According to him, the fine and penalty are quite reasonable. He has submitted that the element of mens rea is not required as a condition precedent for levying personal penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. In support of this submission, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore the Commissioner by way of their letter, aforesaid. In the said letter they clearly submitted that, over the past, they used to import identical goods without special import licence and such consignments used to be cleared by the customs authorities. That was the circumstance which made them believe that the importation in question could also be made under OGL without any special import licence. When this importation was objected to by the authorities, the appellants promptly paid redemption fine for redeeming the goods and also remitted the personal penalty imposed by the Commissioner. These circumstances, as stated in the letter, were not even adverted to, let alone considered, by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order. No ....