TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9/17-18 dated 06.04.2018. 2. The basic facts are that the importer M/s. Bedy Associates and M/s. Data Enterprises imported used Multifunction Digital Photocopiers and Printers (referred as MFDs). On investigation, it was found that these importers had imported the above products without following the mandatory requirements as stipulated in the Hazardous and Other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016, Electronics and IT Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration Order, (CRO), 2012 and Foreign Trade Policy 2015 to 2020. Accordingly, the Commissioner in the impugned orders confiscated the goods without granting any option for redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act 1962. He also rejected the declared value of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der. In this connection, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the order cited by the appellant has examined the same issue and has concluded that the item MFD was not notified under the CRO and as such, it is not open to the Customs authorities to blindly apply the directives of Department of Electronics and Information Technology through the letter dt. 16/12/2016 to the appellant's goods. In view of the above, we are of the view that the appellants cannot be held to have violated the provisions of the Compulsory Registration Order. 6.3. Having concluded that the imported goods are liable for confiscation but ordering absolute confiscation is not justified, we are left with the task of deciding what would be th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hing to do with the violations specified therein. Therefore, the allegation that the appellant had connived with the importers without any evidence cannot be sustained, hence requested for setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellant in both the cases. 2.2 The learned counsel relied on the following decisions: * Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port-Import), Chennai vs. City Office Equipment: 2016 (336) ELT 19 (Mad.) * Chakiat Agencies vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Chennai: 2023 (385) ELT 270 (Tri.-Mad.) 3. The learned Authorized Representative submits that since the Tribunal had upheld confiscation and allowed the goods on redemption fine and penalty and also upheld the penalty on the firm under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty 1 [not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees], whichever is the greater; 2 [(ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subject to the provisions of section 114A, to a penalty not exceeding ten per cent. of the duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees, whichever is higher : Provided that where such duty as determined under sub-section (8) of section 28 and the interest payable thereon under section 28AA is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the proper officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly". However, there is nothing on record as evidence to prove the involvement of the appellant directly or indirectly that he had connived with the importer. It also intimated that no action was initiated against the appellant under the Customs Broker Regulations till date and therefore, the appellants claim that in good faith he had filed the documents as per the importers' directions cannot be ignored. 7. In the case of Commissioner of Customs (Sea port - import), Chennai Vs. City Office Equipment (supra), the Hon'ble High Court in an identical case held that: "10. The Commissioners of different regions, namely, Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi and Chennai are exercising their discretions inconsistently. Mumbai and Kolkata Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd on perusal of the record, I find that the Revenue has not been able to bring any evidence on record which shows that the appellant had prior knowledge regarding the violation of the provisions of the Customs Act. Further I find that this Tribunal in its Final Order No. 20523/2019, dated 4-7-2019 reduced the penalties imposed on the passenger after holding that there was no suppression of facts by the passenger. Once the passenger has not suppressed any material fact then how it can be said that the appellant has abetted the passenger in the commission of certain violation of the Customs Act. Further I find that in the case of Triways Transportation Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1027 (Tri. - Del.) whe....