9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and payment of duty of Rs. 10,61,731/- along with interest w.e.f. 28-4-1998. He has imposed penalty of Rs. 10,61,731/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act as well as Rs. 50,000/-under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act 1962. 2. Heard Shri S.S. Radhakrishnan, ld. Advocate for appellants and Shri S. Sudarsan, ld. DR. 3. Ld. Advocate submits that the facts of the case briefly are that appellants had submitted for export of certain goods, which on examination were found to differ in quantity that what was declared in the Shipping Bills. The importer-appellant is a 100% EOU. In view of the shortages noticed, the Officers of DRI visited the unit and conducted stock taking of the goods available. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that the order-in-original needs to be modified accordingly and consequential relief made available to them. In this respect ld. Advocate also cites the decision of Hon ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CC v. Lexus Exports Private Ltd. as in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 228 (Cal.) wherein it was held that over-invoicing and incorrect description are not violation of Section 18(1)(a) of FERA and therefore not a violation of Section 11 of the Customs Act. Thus, Clause (d) and (l) of Section 113 of Customs Act are not attracted in this case. Ld. Advocate submits that therefore confiscation has been wrongly adjudged in this case. 6. Ld. DR meets the submission of ld. Advocate with respect to the case-laws cited above by drawing our attentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances, the valuation thereof was not possible under the main provisions of Section 14 of the Act but the ld. Commissioner should have resorted to the Customs Valuation thereunder as there was no sale involved. This has not been done. Instead, while valuing the goods, ld. Commissioner has taken the invoice value which do not refer to any transaction value under the said section. This is, to our mind, a serious error of misapplication of law in the order impugned. (ii) We also find that when the matter was submitted before the original authority a number of decisions had been submitted with respect to the issue of whether misdeclaration of quantity would render the export goods as prohibited. Ld. Commissioner has not considered all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
