TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 781
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate the said offended goods valued Rs. 56 lakhs approximately under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I permit the importer, M/s Essar Oil Ltd to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- 9rs One Lakh only) of the Customs Act, 1962. I order for assessment of goods on payment of duty without benefit under EPCG scheme. 8. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (rs Fifty Thousand only) on the importer, M/s Essar Oil Ltd, under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962." 2.1 Appellants filed a Bill of Entry No 686436 dated 28.01.2011 for clearance of "CR Engine with spares and accessories" at an assessable value of Rs. 2,86,17,810.99/-. They also claimed benefit of EPCG scheme in terms of Customs Notification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o intention to the claim the benefit of EPCG License in respect of these chemicals and they were under under bonafide belief that the benefit of EPCG License was admissible in respect of all the goods imported under the said invoice. Since they were under bonafide belief the action of Commissioner in confiscating the goods under Section 111(m) and allowing them to release on redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot be justified. Similarly penalty imposed also is not warranted in case of such bonafide mistake. He relied upon the decision of Tribunal in aces of Sorento Granito Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs Vishakhapatnam [2009 (245) ELT 657 (T-Bang)] wherein it has been held "3.1 .......From the above, the misdeclaration is not an intent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by mis-declaring the goods as part and accessories of the engine for availing the benefit of exemption under EPCG scheme appellant have contravened the provisions of Custom Act, 1962. Accordingly the goods have been rightly helf to be liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods have been confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakhs which is not excessive. For the contraventions done penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on the appellants which too is very justifiable. He stated the appeal be dismissed. 4.1 We have considered the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Appellants do not dispute that while filling the bill of entry....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e error". Nothing has been brought on record to show the bonafides. Further Bombay High court has in case of I G Petrochemicals Ltd [2016 (3380 ELT 17 (Bom)] held as follows: "12. The Tribunal has assigned cogent and satisfactory reasons. The reasons are that appellants imported capital goods and they were imported without payment of customs duty. These goods went in manufacture and export of excisable goods. There were also certain materials procured indigenously without payment of duty at the time of de-bonding. These forgone duties were capable of being recovered and were recovered. However, the investigation reveals that the complete list of capital goods is not procured or not handed over at the time of de-bonding. It is only when t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f about availability of fund. Merely because funds were not actually released, it cannot be held to be a misdeclaration. It is to be noted that it has to be factually in each case concluded as to whether fraud is established. It would depend on the facts of each case. In the present case even if respondent No. 1's stand is accepted at the most there was an assurance to provide funds. The same by no stretch of imagination, equated with funds already available. There is a gulf of difference between assurance to provide financial assistance and in reality providing finance assistance. In the latter case only there is availability of funds. 41. The word "reasonable" signifies "in accordance with reason". In the ultimate analysis it is a ques....