TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er-In-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-000-APP-329 to 330-21-22 dtd. 21.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that Appellant No. 2, a customs broker presented Shipping Bill No. 5573040 dtd. 21.04.2017 on behalf of the Appellant No. 1 (Exporter), declaring a quantity of 52 MT. and FOB value of Rs. 2,40,08,411.76 of export goods declared as 'Copper Strips/Earth Rod (in Coil form) and classified under CTH 85381090. During examination of the cargo by the officers of Docks Examination, the cargo appeared to be 'Copper Bonded Iron Rods' and for further investigation, the matter was referred to SIIB. During investigation, it was observed that the customer broker had filed another shippi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods and the declared value. He ordered for confiscation of the goods under Sec. 113 (h) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 12,50,000/- was imposed each under Sec. 114 (ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant company and ordered to appropriate the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 19,11,000/- against the duty liability, fine and penalty. The Adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,50,000/- each under Section 114 (ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on Appellant No. 2. The appeal preferred by the appellants against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed. Hence the appellants are before this Tribunal.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddressed a letter dtd. 03.05.2017 to the Customs department, as aforesaid. 4. He also submits that there was mix up of cargo with which the appellant was being associated and the cargo one of M/s Horizon Enterprises which is apparent from statement of Shri Vipul Thakker, executive of CHA, dtd. 05.05.217 as well as a statement of Shri Bhavin Kapuria, Proprietor of M/s Marc Industries. Thus, the objectionable cargo in question was not relatable to the appellant. On appointment of new Customs Broker, under guidance of new customs broker, appellant filed amended shipping bill no. 5573040 dtd. 21.07.2017. The Appellant also approached Dy. Commissioner of Customs and as guided furnished provisional bond and bank guarantee and on release of goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgments in support of arguments. (i) Diamond Creations Vs. CC Mundra (2022)1 Centax 184. (ii) JG Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC Nhava Sheva -III (2023) 2 Centax 6 (iii) Gayson & Company (P) Ltd. Vs. CC (Port), Kolkata 2019 (370) ELT 1026. 9. The Learned Consultant Shri Vikas Mehta appeared and argued for the appellant No. 2. He submits that the appellant is not liable to penalty under Section 114 (ii) of Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as there is no allegation that goods were rendered liable to confiscation owing to omission or commission on the part of appellant. Further, they had prepared and filed the shipping bills strictly on the basis of documents received from exporters and there is no iota of evidence to show that appellant had prior ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d he stated that this check list was a converted one, wherein the name of exporter was converted from M/s Horizon Enterprises to M/s Basant Global Trade Pvt. Ltd. which was done on receipt of communication from Shri Rajvardhan Jha alias Dhiraj (transporter) of M/s. Shivarpan Enterprises. We also find that Shri Bhavin Nileshbhai Kapuria in his statement dtd. 04.05.2017 also stated that there was two cargos to be exported. One by M/s Basnat Global Trade Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s. Horizon Enterprises, Mumbai. The cargo declared for exports by M/s. Horizon Enterprises was of copper rods and the cargo being exported by M/s Basant Global Trade Pvt. Ltd. is copper strips. The clearances of both the cargo was given to the forwarder Mr. Rajvardha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terial was interchanged with the goods of some other party, the appellant approached the department. The bonafide act of the appellant No. 1 in this matter therefore cannot be doubted. Further, in the present matter department also allowed the amendment in shipping bill and export of the goods to UAE buyer. 15. We find that in the entire disputed matter the Appellant No. 1 himself is victim of disputed transaction. We also take note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Guru Ispat Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 384 (Tri.-Cal.) wherein the re-export of the wrongly shipped goods by the foreign supplier was allowed, by taking into account the bona fide of the appellants, by taking immediate steps, on detection of wrong shipment....