9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 25,00,000/- 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Ayesha Exports and M/s. Kazal Impex which are proprietary concerns of Sh. Manish Vijhani made import of fabric and filed Bills of Entry declared the same as polyester knit fabric and claimed the classification under Heading 6002.43 of Customs Tariff. The Customs authorities had not accepted the classification claimed by the importer and after chemical test of the goods classified under Heading 6001.92 of Customs Tariff attracting higher rate of duty. During investigation statement of Sh. Anthony J. D Souza proprietor of M/s. Elinc Clearing and Forwarding, CHA was recorded who filed the Bills of Entry regarding the consignments in question. In his statement he mentioned that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenging the order of confiscation, they are only challenged the penalties imposed under Section 112A of Customs Act. The contention of the appellant is that there is no evidence on record to show that they have any role in mis-declaration of the imported goods. They were buyer of the imported goods which are to be imported by M/s. Ayesha Exports and they also paid certain amounts as advance to Sh. Manish Vijhani. The contention is also that during arguments before adjudicating authority Sh. Manish Vijhani submitted that he was not an actual exporter in fact the import was made on behalf of the present appellants and he had not disclosed facts earlier to the investigating authority as he was under constant threat. The contention of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the sample of the imported goods, which was sent for retesting. In these circumstances, as the present appellant are actively involved by mis-declaring the imported goods with intent to evade payment of duty. 5. We find that in this case the adjudicating authority mainly relied upon disclosure made by Sh. Manish Vijhani at the time of personal hearing. Before the adjudicating authority Sh. Manish Vijhani submitted that everything is done on behalf of the present appellant. This fact was not disclosed by Sh. Manish Vijhani during the investigation of the case nor the appellants were put to notice regarding such disclosure before the adjudicating authority. This disclosure was made at the back of the present appellants. We find that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
