Case Law Details
D.J. Import (Prop-Harpreet Singh) Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
So far as penalty under Section 117 is concerned, CESTAT find that the conduct of the Appellant is also dubious, and not clean. In spite of having knowledge that the goods dispatched by the Shipper vide aforementioned Bill of Lading, being not as per order and containing counterfeit goods, being a regular importer it was his duty to cooperate with Customs and inform suo moto regarding the nature of the goods dispatched by the Shipper, and also of his intention of having abandoned the same goods. The goods were lying in the port after unloading by the shipping line for about three months, and neither the Appellant had filed any Bill of Entry nor had given any intimation of his decision to abandon the goods. It was only when physical examination was taken by opening the seal of container on 05.08.2014, the Customs department found regarding the mis-declaration, both as regards quantity and description. In the circumstances, I uphold the penalty under Section 117 of the Act. However, the quantum of penalty is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand).
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The issue involved in the Appeal is penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-under Section 112 and Rs. 50,000/- under Section 117 whether have been rightly imposed on the Appellant (importer).
2. Brief facts of the case are:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
