2008 (6) TMI 388

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1 crore in lieu of confiscation of the goods imported by them under 37 Bills of Entry and imposition of penalty equal to duty on them under Section 114(a) of the Customs Act and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on one Shri N.C. Alexander (second appellant) under Section 112(a) of the Act. The appeal filed by M/s. Em Pee Bee International, represented by its proprietor Shri M.P. Babu is against the above demand of duty, fine and penalty. The other appeal is by Shri N.C. Alexander challenging the penalty imposed on him. The impugned demand is based on enhancement of value of the imported goods ordered by the Commissioner on the basis of the computer printouts retrieved by the DRI from the supplier of the goods (a US company) through t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd to be not bearing the seal and signature of the Customs officials in Hong Kong and hence the declaration was considered to be not authentic. Contesting these arguments, ld. SDR submits that Shri M. P. Babu had, in his statement, accepted the printouts to be authentic and had admitted that the prices shown therein were correct. In his rejoinder, ld. counsel submits that the above statement was retracted by Shri Babu in a writ petition filed before the Hon ble High Court. Without prejudice to these submissions, the ld. counsel points out that, in a pending appeal filed by M/s. Em Pee Bee Exports Imports (P) Ltd., on similar facts and circumstances, this Bench had granted waiver in respect of a major part of the duty and penalty on that c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prior to issuance of the show cause notice can, by no means, constitute any retraction of the confessional statement. At best, the retraction, in this case, was made in reply to the SCN. Such retraction prima facie cannot be accepted as valid retraction. In the result, the admission by Shri M.P. Babu (Proprietor of M/s. Em Pee Bee International) rules out the applicability of Section 3(2) of the 1948 Act to the facts of this case. Prima facie, the enhancement of value of the goods based on the prices mentioned in the computer printouts, which prices were accepted to be the correct prices by the importer, is sustainable in law. The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court cited by the ld. counsel is not relevant in this context. The appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X