9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the Enforcement Directorate, it appeared to the Customs authorities that the appellants had undervalued the goods. The said documents included (a) quotation dated 14-2-1996 received from Consulate-General of India in Dubai, which indicated prices in dirhams for similar goods (b) pricelist dated 31-8-1994 issued by Sony Rimsat Ltd. (Asia office) and (c) statements of one Shri S. Manickam and one Shri Anandavelu, recorded at Singapore by the Enforcement Directorate officers. Accordingly, a case of wilful misstatement and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of Customs duty was booked against the appellant by the department. Show-cause notice dated 11-12-98 was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) proposing to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings is presently under scrutiny by the Hon ble High Court in Criminal R.C. No. 173/2007; (c) The Hon ble High Court has stayed the proceedings of the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic offence), Egmore, initiated by the Enforcement Directorate and, therefore, the evidentiary materials collected from the Enforcement Directorate by the Customs authorities have no legal validity as of now; (d) The declared value of the goods has been rejected without any valid reason; (e) Enhancement of the value on the basis of a mere quotation is not sustainable under Section 14 of the Customs Act; (f) Even otherwise, any enhancement of value on the basis of price of goods imported into India from countries different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. With reference to ld. Counsel s objections relating to penalty, ld. SDR submits that the Commissioner has not imposed any penalty on the party under Section 114A of the Act. Ld. Commissioner has rightly imposed penalty under Section 112(a), which was in force at the time of commission of the offence. 4. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we have not found convincing reason for sustaining the Commissioner s order. The import was made on 10-4-1995 and the Bill of Entry was finally assessed by the proper officer of Customs who accepted the declarations of the party. Later on, a few quotations came to the notice of the Customs authorities, one relating to goods with Hong Kong as its country of origin and the other rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
