2023 (7) TMI 596

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 23.6.2011-90 MT 2. Officers of SIIB carried out examination and found 64.280 MTs of old and used clothes classifiable under CTH 6309 (BCD 10%) and held a view that the said goods have been misdeclared and are liable for confiscation under the provisions of section 111(d) & (m) of the Act and importer is liable for penalty under section 112(a) of the Act. The officers placed the goods and five trucks carrying the goods under seizure. 3. Mr. Rakesh Singh, Government approved valuer determined the fair value of goods as Rs. 50,90,000/- and based on which differential duty was determined as Rs.7,06,028/- 4. The appellants vide their reply accepted their negligence and took full responsibility to pay fine/penalty and differential duty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) , appellants have filed the present appeal. 6. At the outset appellant submitted that the appellant is not contesting, duty and redemption fine on goods. Contest is only to penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- under section 112(a) and redemption fine of Rs. 175,000 on conveyance, 6.1. The appellant submits that the stand taken by the appellant right from the investigation stage that there was no wilful misdeclaration; remains uncontroverted. It has been the submission of the appellant that their head office is at Panipat and their Unit at KASEZ was being supervised by junior staff, that appellant imported goods in to KASEZ in the normal course and after segregating only mutilated goods are removed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rks out far lesser than Rs. 4,00,000/- imposed upon the appellant. 6.5 In view of above submission, penalty requires proportionate reduction. It is settled law that quantum of penalty should be commensurate to the offence. 7. Further, Section 111 does not contemplate imposition of redemption fine on conveyance. Secondly, there is otherwise also no reason given justifying imposition of redemption fine on trucks which were used for conveyance. 8. Learned Commissioner (appeals) clearly erred in going beyond the scope of case as was made in OIO by holding that Trucks were used for concealment. There is no case made out in OIO that trucks were used for concealment; trucks were used for conveyance only. Without prejudice to the aforesaid....