2015 (2) TMI 692

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... confirmation of demand towards anti-dumping duty has set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer, M/s. Vidhi Dyestuff Manufacturing Ltd., Mumbai, in respect of import of "Soda Ash-Light" under Bill of Entry No. 8799176 dated 18/12/2012 by holding that there was no misdeclaration on the part of the appellant and only there was an error in not paying the anti-dumping duty which was made subsequently good by the appellant and the said error was also repeated by the department while validating the assessment. Therefore, he has set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed vide order dated 03/01/2013. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant Revenue is before us. 2. The condonation of delay seeks to condone a delay of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt made with intent to evade duty or avoid compliance of the conditions of notifications and the importer is responsible for self assessment of duty and for filing of all declarations. In the present case, the goods originated from Turkey and was exported from Iran and therefore, in terms of notification No. 34/2002-Cus dated 03//07/2012, anti-dumping duty was leviable on the said goods vide Serial No. 12 of the table annexed to the said notification. Thus, while doing the self assessment, the importer has committed an error and hence the imposition of fine and penalty is justified. 3.2 The learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds in the appeal memorandum. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with respect to the impugned transaction. It is true that the respondent did not discharge the anti-dumping duty liability. The customs authorities also validated the transaction without noticing the mistake committed by the importer and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent alone was negligent and not the department. Further, no goods have been seized or confiscated. The law does not provide for imposition of fine on a consignment which has already been cleared and not available for confiscation and therefore, imposition of redemption fine by the original authority on the importer is clearly unsustainable in law and therefore, the appellate authority was right in dropping the demand of fine. As regards the imposition of penalty,....