Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Tribunal

New Asia Medical P. Ltd. vs Cc on 27 July, 1998

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
New Asia Medical P. Ltd. vs Cc on 27 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999 (80) ECR 109 Tri Delhi
Bench: J T P.C., S Kang


ORDER

P.C. Jain, Member (T)

1. Short question involved in the present appeal is that even though the invoice had mentioned regarding import of PCBs, the appellants had not declared them in the Bill of Entry. It is only on examination of the goods that the appellants modified the Bill of Entry by declaring PCBs. It is also admitted to the appellants that PCBs required an ITC licence but learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that they had immediately produced the licence and the authorities had also accepted it. He, therefore, submits that in view of the licence having been produced the appellants’ goods could not be confiscated nor any personal penalty be imposed. On the other hand, learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal has pointed out that but for the examination of the goods and but for being pointed out by Customs Officers the declaration of PCBs would have escaped. It is, therefore, a case of misdeclaration. He submits that confiscation of goods had been made not under Section 111 (d) but under Section 111(m). Therefore, the offence is clearly established against the appellants. However, having regard to the fact that the appellants had produced the valid licence, the lower appellate authority had already reduced the fine from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20,000/- and the penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-

2. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. While we. agree with the learned SDR that the offence against the appellants is established but we are further of the view that even the fine and penalty sustained by the lower appellate authority appear to be somewhat on the higher side in view of the fact that the appellants did produce the licence and which has been accepted by the authorities. Further, PCBs were duly declared in the. invoices. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, we reduce the fine to Rs. 10,000/- and the penalty to Rs. 5000/-.

3. But for the modification in the quantum of fine and penalty, impugned order is otherwise upheld.

Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.