Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
B.K. Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd vs Airport, Mumbai on 1 January, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPEAL NO: C/87357/2013
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No: COMMR/PMS/ADJN/15/2012-13 dated 28/02/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Airport, Mumbai.]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
:
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
:
No
3.
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
:
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
:
Yes
B.K. Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs
Commissioner of Customs
Airport, Mumbai
Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellant Shri Chatru Singh, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing: 01/01/2016 Date of decision: 01/01/2016 ORDER NO: ____________________________ This appeal is filed against Order-in-Original No: COMMR/PMS/ADJN/15/2012-13 dated 28/02/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Airport, Mumbai.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. Since the matter was listed many times and was not prosecuted, I take up the appeal for disposal even in the absence of any representation from the appellant.
3. Heard the learned departmental representative. It is his submission that the appellant herein is a CHA on whom penalty has been imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for non following or contravening the provisions of law. It is his submission that they improperly declared description of the products imported as powder of synthetic diamonds instead of powder of natural diamonds and hence contravened the provisions of Regulation13(d) and (c) of CHALR, 2004 and hence properly penalized under Section 117.
4. I find from the impugned order that the adjudicating authority has only directed reclassification of the goods imported under the description of powder of natural diamonds and accepted the declared value, which is the transaction value, and assessed the same on the same value. I also find that the adjudicating authority has not held the goods are liable for confiscation for mis-declaration of the description. In the absence of such findings by the adjudicating authority, in my considered view, the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent it is contested in this appeal, is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Pronounced in Court) (M V Ravindran) Member (Judicial) */as 3