9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Additional Collector also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellants. He has also ordered that the assessment of the goods may be done on the enhanced assessable value of Rs. 2,81,136/- as against the declared value of Rs. 1,70,430/-. The facts of the case are that appellants filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of two sets of Infant Incubators. During the examination of the document, it was noticed that the appellant was an authorised agent of M/s. Atom Medical Corporation, Japan, who are the manufacturer/supplier of the goods in question appointing the appellant as accredited agent in India and also to render after-sale service. The said letter was produced by the appellant himself. Hence, they directed the appellant to produce th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellants. In view of this Certificate, he pleaded that there is no misdeclaration in value and the appeal is, therefore, required to be allowed. They also pleaded that even if it is held that the value is required to be enhanced considering the fact that all the documents were voluntarily produced, there was no mala fide on their part. 3. The learned JDR Shri A.K. Singhal contended that the appellants have been shifting their stand to suit their convenience for avoiding payment of duty on the appropriate assessable value. They have first pleaded that they are the accredited agent of the suppliers and when the customs started their enquiry on the nature of the special relationship, they shifted their stand to state that they are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessment of duty are sustainable and we uphold the same. 5. Now the question remains as to whether redemption fine and penalty could be sustained. The appellants appear to have taken a different stand on enquiry. All the same, they have produced the suppliers price list themselves. Possibly they appear to have got a special discount. However, such a favoured price cannot be taken to be the normal price for assesssment. Thus, while upholding the enhancement in value, we are inclined to agree with the plea of the appellant that penal proceedings are not warranted, in view of the fact that the goods are life saving equipment and the appellants themselves produced all the documents. Hence, we deem it proper to remit the redemption fine a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
