2019 (11) TMI 452

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in Surgical Instruments, Parts & Accessories classifiable under item 9018 CT and are regularly importing through Air Cargo Complex, Trivandrum and paying appropriate Customs Duty. The appellant had taken import licences issued by the Drug Controller and the main item imported by the appellant was different type of 'Catheters'. The appellant has been importing the said item from 23.11.2005 to 17.03.2011 and has been filing Bill of Entry declaring the entire details of the goods imported and Customs used to clear them after examination on payment of Customs Duty and other lawful charges and after satisfying themselves that the appellant has complied with all statutory formalities/procedures under Customs Act. Further, it was provided under R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appeal and after one year and two months of the personal hearing, the Commissioner (A) issued a Notice dated 22.04.2017 under Section 128A(3) of the Act on the ground that the penalty of Rs. 5,55,000/- imposed by the Original Authority in the OIO is on the lower side and therefore proposed enhancement of penalty. Thereafter, the Commissioner (A) enhance the penalty from Rs. 5,55,000/- to Rs. 15,00,000/-. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts without appreciating the facts in right perspective. He further submitted that originally there were two allegations leveled against the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been dropped by both the authorities but in spite of that the redemption fine and penalty was imposed on the appellant. The redemption fine has already been paid by the appellant and the appellant has only challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,55,000/- by the Original Authority to the Commissioner (A). He also submitted that another SCN No.21/2010 dated 23.07.2010 was issued for recovery of short payment of duty and in that Notice also, there was no mention of the mis-declaration and that the said item cannot be imported through Trivandrum Airport. He also submitted that substantially, the demand is barred by limitation because the SCN was issued on 16.08.2011 for the imports affected from 23.11.2005 to 17.03.2011 and no suppression....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity after considering the submissions of the appellant has observed that there was no mis-declaration on the part of the appellant while filing the Bill of Entry and that finding has not been disturbed even by the Commissioner (A). Further, I find that the Department issued another SCN No.21/2010 dated 23.07.2010 demanding short payment of duty on certain items but in the said SCN also, no allegation was made that the appellant is not entitled to import through Trivandrum Airport. Once the Customs authorities has come to the conclusion that there is no mis-declaration and there is no suppression of facts by the appellant in filing the Bill of Entry which was accepted by the Department, then invoking the extended period of limitation is not....