2012 (10) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Lal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. -  The Appellants are a research institute. They filed Bill of Entry No. 363670 dated 29-6-2006 through their Customs House Agent for clearance of one spectrophotometer. The Bill of Entry was assessed by the Computerized Risk Management System accepting the assessment as declared in the Bill of Entry filed and fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fficer confiscated the excess goods valued at Rs. 5,03,475/- and allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. One lakh. Further, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the importer under Section 112(b)(v) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the order, the Appellants filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) found it to be a case of ge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n to evade customs duty. They rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 537 (S.C.) and Pine Chemical Suppliers - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 25 (S.C.) and argue that even when mens rea is not there the goods are liable to be confiscation and the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in his order and therefore the same may be set aside. 3. We have ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Customs Act. The decisions of the Supreme Court cited above cannot be interpreted to mean that no room for correcting a bona fide error. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already held that the situation arose out of bona fide error. So considering the overall facts of the case, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order. There is an issue that a penalty is imposed under Section 112 w....