TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Customs seeking clearance of polished marble slabs imported into containers. On examination, it was found that they had actually imported unpolished marble slabs whose import was restricted. The quantity of imported marble was also under layer than the declaration. The importer did not have required import licence as per EXIM Policy and therefore, the marble slabs were seized and show cause notices were issued to the appellants. After following due process, the lower authority vide his Order-in-Original No. 29/2011, dated 31-3-2011, rejected the declaration made in the Bill of Entry as 611 Sq. Mt. of marble slabs and held that the quantity was 861.03 Sq. Mt. on physical examination. He also revised the value of the goods accordingly a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced the redemption fine from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- on the importer. He further reduced personal penalty on Shri L.N. Maru, Director of importer from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- and he reduced penalty on the CHA from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they had actually placed an order for polished marble slabs but they have wrongly received unpolished marble slabs instead and this mistake was admitted by their overseas supplier in the correspondence which they had made after importation. He also submits that additional quantity of marble received was also on account of this mistake. He therefore, prays that the confiscation of the imported marble and the penalties imposed on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facto undated letter from their supplier does not, in any way, alter the confiscability of the goods which have been imported. If it is held to the contrary the entire system of restrictions on imports in the country become meaningless. Anybody can import any prohibited goods and simply produce an e-mail or a letter from their overseas supplier saying that prohibited goods were sent to them by mistake. Holding such a view would defeat all the legal provisions of the country under various enactments with respect to restrictions on imports. We, therefore, find that the goods in question are liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. Redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority was already reduced by the first appel....