2026 (7) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order, the learned Commissioner modified the Orders-in-Original by reducing the redemption fine and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 to Rs. 2 lakhs & Rs. 1 lakh respectively [in appeal arising out of O-I-O No. 2/2015-16 AM(l)dated 12.4.2016]and Rs.1.5 lakhs & Rs. 50,000/- respectively [in appeal arising out of O-I-O No. 208/2015-16 AM(l) dated 18.2.2016]. The prayer in the appeals before us is for setting aside the imposition of fine and penalty. 2. The appellant imported 'Honed Polished Marble Slabs (Thickness 20MM-2MM), Honed Polished Marble Slabs (Thickness 20MM - 1MM) vide Bills of Entry No. 3552711 and 3552720 both dated 11.12.2015. The consignments were given out of charge on the same day but were put on hold by the Preventive....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance was made 'under protest'. 6. The request of the appellant dated 26.2.2016 for re-examination & re-measurement of the marble slabs by a trade expert was rejected by the lower authority. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) partially modified the orders by reducing the redemption fine and penalties to Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh respectively in the first appeal, and to Rs. 1.5 lakhs and Rs. 50,000/- respectively in the second appeal. Aggrieved by the confirmation of fine and penalty even in the reduced form, the Appellant has filed the present appeals. 7. The primary issue before us is whether the confirmed redemption fine under Sections 111(l) and (m) ibid and the penalty u/s. 114A thereof are legally sustainable in the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e impugned order and submits that the excess of 13% beyond the declared surface area exceeds the 10% tolerance under Standing Order No. 22/2010, and that the Appellant's own letter dated 05.01.2016 constitutes an unqualified acceptance of the excess quantity. Therefore the imposition of fine and penalty was justified. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative on behalf of Revenue and perused the case records. We have carefully considered the letter dated 05.01.2016. The Appellant therein unequivocally stated acceptance of the measurement report and payment of differential duty. There is no contemporaneous notation or endorsement indicating that this acceptance was made 'under protes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... evidence wilful misstatement or fraudulent intent. The Standing Order dated 16.4.2010 is an administrative instruction which though is binding on the department but not on us. 12. Admittedly there is excess surface area and the appellant since beginning are inclined to pay duty on the same but that doesn't attract confiscation u/s. 111(l) & (m) ibid and the penalty u/s. 114A ibid because bonafide mistakes do not automatically amount to mis-declaration or suppression. Penal consequence like confiscation generally require deliberate defiance of law, conscious disregard of obligation or dishonest conduct, which we are unable to find in the facts of this case. Section 111(l) & (m) ibid are particularly intended to prevent duty evasion and m....