2026 (9) TMI 1942

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 04/2015-16 Adj. (I) ACC dated 29.04.2015 (herein after, referred to as "the impugned order") passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. 2.1 Brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are summarized herein below: 3.2 The appellant herein is a co-noticee in the show cause proceedings initiated against an importer M/s Rashi Peripherals Private Limited, Mumbai in respect of mis-classification of imported goods viz., "Removable or Exchangeable Disc Drives". The Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2013 issued in this regard, was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order by rejecting the declared classification of impugned goods under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8471 7020 and by revisin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issue involved in this appeal is to examine whether the appellant is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether such penalty imposed in the impugned order is legally sustainable. 7.1 In the impugned order, learned Commissioner has inter alia dealt with the role of the appellant and recorded as follows: "29.(A1) With respect to the goods imported by M/s Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai through Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai, Shri Kapal Suresh Pansari, Director of M/s. Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. Is liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for suppression of facts, willful mis-declaration, omissions and commissions which has rendered the impugned goods li....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the declared CIF value of Rs. 16,69,500/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred only) as listed at Annexure-B to the Show Cause Notice liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods are not physically available, redemption fine is not imposable (As discussed in para 26 above). xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (B1) I impose a penalty of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Kapal Suresh Pansari, Director of M/s. Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai." Therefore, he had imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) ibid. 7.2 In order to examine the disputed issue, we would like to refer to the relevant legal pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r company, vide Final Order No. A/87663/2019 dated 09.12.2019. The extract of the relevant paragraphs is given below: "3. We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute of classification of the above impugned goods is no more res integara, in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CC, New Delhi Vs. Supertron Electronic Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (357) ELT 401 (Tri.) and Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC - 2018-TIOL-1445-CESTAT-DEL. Vide orders dated 06.01.2017 and 13.03.2018 respectively, this Tribunal has held that the impugned goods should appropriately be classifiable under Tariff Item 84717020. Civil Appeals filed by Revenue against the said orders of the Tribunal were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide o....