2014 (5) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) JUDGEMENT Per B.S.V. MURTHY: Appellant imported computer parts such as RAMs and Microprocessors and Hard Disk Drives and filed a Bill of Entry on 4.1.2010. When the goods were verified, it was found that there was variation in the quantity declared by the appellant and actual quantity more than what was declared. Further, the officers also found that the goods were used and old and they....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2,50,000/- and penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 2. Learned counsel submits that there was no intention of mis-declaration of value or mis-description of the goods. The mistake happened when the supplier while supplying the goods supplied a portion of the goods which were meant for another customer. After excess quantity was found, the suppl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the Bill of Entry on the request of the supplier. In these circumstances, he submits that redemption fine and penalty have to be waived or at least reduced to substantially if cannot be waived. 3. Learned AR submits that this is a clear case of mis-declaration. According to him, in case of mis-declaration, the goods are liable for confiscation and redemption fine can be imposed. As regards t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned AR, in terms of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, rendering the goods liable to confiscation is sufficient. In this case, the goods are liable for confiscation. Nevertheless, the importer claimed that it was a mistake and it happened because of the supplier and another customer which has not been gone into and considered at all. Having accepted the submission at face value, I consider that....