9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but it appeared to the Customs authorities that the value declared was on the lower side. Show cause notice was waived by the appellants. On a query from the Customs authorities the appellants had also produced undated proforma invoice showing a value of the goods at US $ 1.50 per piece CIF for one brand and US $ 1.20 per piece for another brand. The appellants' case had been that this lower price was a specially quoted price given by the suppliers because of anticipation of capturing Indian market. The adjudicating authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 14,00,000/- and a personal penalty of Rs. 3.75 lakhs on the appellants herein. The appellants did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... points out that at the time of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the adjudicating authority, the appellants had been given to understand that a redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- would be imposed and he was asked to deposit the same. Consequently, he deposited the said amount, as is apparent from the photocopy of the Bill of Entry at page 13 of the appeal papers. However, when the appellants received the order they found that the redemption fine and the penalty had been imposed at a far higher level, as mentioned above. He, therefore, submits that the redemption fine and penalty as originally indicated by the adjudicating authority, should be kept at that level and should not be increased. 3.1 Opposin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He should be allowed to produce evidence and the department should also be allowed to produce its witnesses in respect of that evidence and both sides should have the liberty to rebut each other's evidence. 5.1 We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe that there is no doubt that a case of mis-declaration of value is sustainable inasmuch as the appellants had a proforma invoice in their possession and the value declared in the said proforma invoice was on the higher side than that declared in the Bill of Entry on the basis of an invoice. Therefore, the goods are clearly liable to confiscation U/S 111(m) and the appellants are liable to be visited upon with a penalty. The question now before us is as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
