2022 (8) TMI 1120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnai. 2. The only issue before me is: whether the penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, levied by the Adjudicating Authority, which came to be upheld in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, is correct? 3. Brief facts, as could be gathered from the impugned order as well as the Order-in-Original and Show Cause Notice, which are relevant for my consideration, inter alia, are that the Bill-of-Entry No. 9553735 dated 04.05.2017 was filed by the importer M/s. Ekdant Enterprises, Maharashtra (IEC No. 0316508951) through their Customs Broker M/s. Map Shipping and Co. for the clearance of goods declared as "Furniture, Plastic Buttons, Porcelain Tiles, etc." supplied by M/s. Zhejiang Beiyi Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd., China vide ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or interested in the consignment in question; that the confiscation of goods proposed under Section 111(l) and 111(m) ibid. relate only to an importer of goods; that since theft of the detained goods was involved against which a police complaint had already been filed by the Container Freight Station (CFS), the same would not justify imposition of penalty under the Customs Act on these appellants; that even there is no whisper or finding that these appellants were the beneficial owners of the goods imported and that the Revenue had also not established that the act or omission on the part of these appellants had rendered the goods in question liable for confiscation. 4.2 In support, he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of....