2018 (2) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e - For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench The facts of the case are that appellant had declared import of 60.59 MTs of iron steel plates vide Bill of Entry No.441412 dt. 22.07.2008 at Tuticorin port. The goods were subjected to first check appraisement to verify the goods with regard to import documents and on examination, the goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty of Rs. 3,75,000/- was imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Act on the appellant. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 21.07.2009 reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 3 lakhs and penalty to Rs. 2.75 lakhs, however has upheld the remaining part of the order of original authority. Hence this appeal. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant, Ld. C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s as stated. Ld. A.R further submits that, in fact, in their letter appellant had only requested for lenient view on deciding the case without personal hearing. In the circumstances, there is no necessity in disturbing the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. Appellants have not enclosed copy of their reply to the SCN or their written submissions to any of the lo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave not expressed any dispute with the duty liability by them. On the other hand, they have only requested for leniency in the matter of imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 6. In a situation, where importers themselves have admitted, not only before the adjudicating authority, but also before the lower appellate authority, that the imported goods are nothing but seconds, it also means th....