TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n setting aside the Adjudication order and the penalties levied on the ground that classification is a departmental function even when there was a misdeclaration and a consequent misclassification of goods by the first respondent with the sole intention to evade the payment of Anti Dumping Duty? (b) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there can be no confiscation of goods under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the grounds of misclassification of goods even when such misclassification of goods was done with a mala fide intention of the first respondent to evade the payment of Anti Dumping Duty? (c) Whether the decision of the Tribunal by setting aside the penalties levied under Customs Act, 1962 is not perv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ADD amount of Rs. 12,10,650/- till the discharge of this liability, as the same was not paid in terms of the aforesaid section. ORDER (i) I order for re-assessment of the bill of entry No. 886618, dated 5-10-2005 filed by M/s. Litetronics Vijay (I) Pvt. Ltd., under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 by (a) imposing ADD in terms of Notfn. 138/2002, dated 7-10-2002 on 15,000 PCS of CFL amounting to Rs. 12,10,650/- (b) collecting interest on (a) above in terms of Section 47(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I order for confiscation of the misdeclared consignment of 15,000 pcs of CFL in SKD form under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. In lieu of confiscation, I allow redemption of the said consignment on payment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)] 2. Densons Pultretaknit v. CCE [2003 (155) E.L.T. 211 (S.C.)] 3. Natl. Radio & Elecns. Co. v. CCE, Aurangabad [2000 (119) E.L.T. 746 (Tri.)] 4. Teksons Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2000 (118) E.L.T. 657 (Tri.)] 5. Indabrator Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2000 (118) E.L.T. 649 (Tri.)] 6. O-in-A No. C. Cus. 875/2005, dated 13-12-2005 passed by the Comm. (A), Chennai. I have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made both by the Department as well as the appellant. Since the appellant themselves restrict their plea to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority's order is upheld. Thus appeal fails and is rejected." 6. Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, the importer filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by a brief order came to the conclusion that the assessee had paid the admitted anti-dumping duty, redemption fine of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and the only issue was penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. According to the Tribunal, there is no dispute on the classification made by the Department under Chapter CTH 8539 31 10 and therefore, the order of the Original Authority on classification stands sustained in terms of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. Insofar as imposition of penalty is concerned, the Tribunal was of the view that the classification is departmental functio....