COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA Vs. TEXOOL WASTESAVERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue has preferred the present appeal. We have heard Shri K.J. Sanchis learned DR, nobody represented the respondents.

(2.) AS per facts on record, the respondents imported goods, by declaring the same as Unicolor Synthetic Hosiery Rags free of cotton from Italy and declaring the value of the same at Rs. 2.22 lakhs. However, on proceedings, such value was increased by the adjudicating authority to Rs. 7.82 lakhs and goods were confiscated with an option to the assessee to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 80,000/ -. Penalties were also imposed.

(3.) ON appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that inasmuch as the importer was located in Special Economic Zone (SEZ), there was no duty implication in respect of the said consignments, there could not be any motive or intention on the part of the assessee to mis -declare the goods in question. As such, by following the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Geetanjali Woolen and the observation made by the adjudicating authority since the unit is located in SEZ, the intention was not evade law or duty, therefore, set aside the order of the lower authorities. We do not find any infirmity in the above view of the appellate authority. The appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly, rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court).