2022 (2) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e destuffed and some cartons were randomly selected for open examination of the contents of the boxes. After opening the boxes, it was noticed that the cartons contained "used / old mini tower computer cases with motherboard / system board having brand names such as Dell, HP etc. attached with power supply port, hard disk / CD / DVD drive, USB ports, audio port, VGA port and accessories". The goods declared as per the bill of entry was "mini tower computer case with power supply accessories". There were undeclared goods along with declared items. 2. it appeared that the importer had misdeclared the goods and attempted to misuse the facilities extended to FTWZ so as to avoid customs examination of undeclared goods. The importer was thus t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4,20,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. Against the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, the appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The department had not filed any appeal against the order passed by the adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority allowing re-export of the goods and directed for confiscation of the goods without option to redeem the same. The penalty imposed was upheld. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel Shri Gaurav Prakash appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had challenged the order passed by the adjudicating authority with regard to the red....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....67. 6. With regard to the penalty, he submitted that the adjudicating authority has allowed for re-export on the request made by the appellant stating that the goods were in fact intended to be supplied for a customer of another country and was wrongly shipped in the name of the appellant. On this score, there is no mens rea on the part of the appellant to avail undue benefit. Penalty can be imposed only where the person has deliberately done in defiance of law or for his contumacious conduct. When the re-export has been allowed, the penalty imposed is harsh and excessive. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 7. The learned AR Shri R. Rajaraman supported the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounsel has relied upon various decisions. In the case of Siemens Public Communication Networks Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held as under:- "5. We have heard the submissions made from both the sides. During the course of the arguments the ld. adv. appearing for the appellant made it clear that the appellants have opted for re-export of the goods. Accordingly they have challenged the order of the Commissioner imposing a redemption fine and penalty for the said re-export, which according to the appellants is not permissible to be imposed in view of the various case laws relied upon by them. It is seen that in the case of Siemens Ltd. v. CC - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C.), their Lordships have held that since goods have been allowed to b....